Prohibition and Harm Reduction
Bryon Wilson

BEHS 364

August 5th 2014

There have been two different strategies of society dealing with alcohol; harm reduction and zero tolerance. The method of harm reduction is focused primarily on reducing the negative effect of alcohol society and the people who drink. This is usually implemented by our government. They create policies and social programs that can treat those afflicted with alcoholism. There are several ways that this can be accomplished, such as limiting access, and taxing the substance to reduce demand. There are also social programs put in place that can help educate, rehabilitate and help recover. This a strategy compared to zero tolerance carries a unique ability to be tailored to suit individual needs as opposed to a one size fits all blanket policy. The harm reduction policy stands on a principle that alcoholism will not be completely eliminated so it would be more benefit to address the negative harms. For instance as alcoholism can be a major problem at work, some companies provide someone as an advocate and counsel. These counselors can work with them to modify behavior and reduce alcohol related incidents and further harm to their self on the job and in their personal life. That is something prohibition policies cannot do for an individual person.

The proponents of zero tolerance see the alcoholic epidemic as a disease and therefore cannot allow continued usage if the person is to be treated and recover. It is not looked at as merely a social or health issue. To support this, the Annual Review states "addiction as a progressive disease with no cure—only abstinence is accepted as a means of stemming the course of the disease, and even a single occasion of drug use is equated with a relapse. These critics have denounced harm reduction as an “enabling” strategy that fosters the continuation of the addictive disease. From a public health perspective, however, harm reductionists see their goal as helping their clients stay alive, healthy, and more motivated to make further habit changes. Harm reductionists state that if total abstinence is the exclusive goal, users who are unable to initiate abstinence will refuse to attend treatment or drop out" [ (Marlatt, 2010) ]

The zero tolerance policy views alcoholism as a disease and links to criminal activity and other various illegal matters. A proponent of all out prohibition would believe that government has a duty to create laws to compel those to completely abstain, with harsh penalty if otherwise. Prohibition in the 20's was more harmful to society due to the unintended side effects such as black market sales and bootlegging. It also pushed liquor underground and made it both more desirable to attain and to sell. By and large, prohibition was a failure due to lack of enforcement and lack of foresight in the black market trade and rise in organized crime. good folks became crooked just by selling liquor in their restaurants and ended up closing for lack of patrons. Crooks bribed police and political leaders, creating further mistrust in the enforcement of the prohibition policies as reported by historians on PBS,

"Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era."(Lerner, PBS)

Zero tolerance laws are blanket policies which remain the same for all with no discernment for each individuals specific needs. The prohibition zero tolerance stance the government took in the 20's was an all out ban on sales and transport. On paper it works well but in practice the enforcement is daunting and nearly impossible since alcohol can be easily made and then sold. The harm reduction strategy is the more obvious choice to employ to reduce alcohol stresses on society. The harm reduction model takes a different approach which attempts to mitigate the damage to society that alcohol presents. This approach is a bit like the free clinic handing out condoms to reduce STDs in poor neighborhoods. There are steps taken in social programs such as wet houses that provide free room and board for the drunken homeless to keep them off the streets and give a monthly stipend. This is also a form of cost reduction by keeping alcoholics out of the ER and jail cells. The downside of this experiment is of course fostering their drinking habits, however it does allow advocates to work with them and kick the addiction later on down the road without force. The harm reduction model seeks to find a compromise from an all out ban and an free for all. Furthermore this approach will not create a black market since there won't be any bans on the substances. This is more of a limit on who, where and when alcohol can be purchased or consumed thus cutting back on criminal activity. The focus would primarily be on those who are addicted with the potential for harmful behavior. The harm reduction has so far proven to actually accomplish something compared to the failed zero tolerance method.

Works Cited
Lerner, M. (2011). Unintended Consequences. Retrieved from Prohibition: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequences/
Marlatt, G. A. (2010). Update on Harm-Reduction and Intervention Research. Annual Reviews.