Jumping out of harm's way: harm reduction in Finnish drug policy conceptual problems and contradictions

Abstract

The article discusses the use of the term “harm reduction” in Finland's contemporary drug policy. The focus is not on the meaning of the term, but rather on its actual use, on how “harm reduction” has been put into play in the governing of the drug question and what is done and has been claimed in the name of “harm reduction”. This brings to light the problems and contradictions that arise if “harm reduction” is taken as a standpoint for policy making or as an analytical tool for drug policy research.

The paper reviews different connections and situations where “harm reduction” has been defined or used as an argument for general or specific goals and interventions. Harm reduction is often seen as a general strategy for national drug policy, as opposed to the traditional repressive and punitive strategy. On the other hand, it is also represented as pragmatic, reactive and situational work without general ideals or principles challenging repressive politics.

Two main perspectives can be distinguished in the discussion on harm reduction: the human rights perspective and the public health perspective. From a human rights perspective harm reduction is advocated by stressing the rights and equality of drug users. The focus is on the harms that the strict policy of control is causing to abusers. Harm reduction from a public health perspective stresses the harms that drug abuse causes to the nation's population, such as HIV, accidents etc. On the side of these main trends, there are however a wide range of practices which are represented in the name of “harm reduction”, among these tighter police control and surveillance to efface the nuisance problems.

The article concludes that in Finland, “harm reduction” is neither a coherent political approach to the drug question nor an exact concept for analytical social research. It is rather a slogan that is used in very different occasions by various political agents as an argument for different interventions, aiming for ideals and goals that might easily contradict each other.