2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

In some ways it seems like harm reduction help addicts with their addictions. However, to determine it is all bad--like your guest from Harvard seems ridiculous. How about helping stop or slow public health dangers -- like HIV, hepatitis, etc. And also, people against these programs drive me crazy because there is often no access to treatment centers. So what is an addict to do? Harm reduction is an appropriate way to help addicts, to gain their trust, a potential first step to more intervention, and helps with other public health issues. I think it is a vital part of any intervention strategy.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context