Applying harm reduction principles to literally everything

The other day, I had a really fruitful conversation with my business coach about applying harm reduction principles as applied to gun use, which she was having a hard time with.

She mentioned that when it comes to drug use and sex work, harm reduction is a no-brainer: she’s on board and supports the use of harm reduction techniques in response to these behaviors.

Here was the issue: she is a gun abolitionist— meaning she advocates for the total eradication of guns for personal use. So when it came to applying the principles of harm reduction — meeting people where they are, accepting that people will use the thing regardless of policy, and approach the use without judgement, etc.— she didn’t want to apply those things to gun use. So she called me to work it through with her.

Here’s how I broke it down for her:

“Let me use harm reduction’s original purpose (keeping drug users alive) to provide an analogy:

Many people are harmed by drugs. Overdoses are at an all-time high (pun not intended), and individuals, families, and communities are struggling to get rid of drugs in response. So, why are you ok with harm reduction principles in regards to drug use, but not gun use?”

…

My answer to her: “It’s because of your own proximity to gun violence, and because of how far away from drug you your positionality allows you to be. You may never be involved in a fentanyl overdose or a drug arrest, because that’s not your positionality. Whereas, gun violence is everywhere, it’s unpredictable, and could realistically affect you and yours, so you’re more invested in the abolition of the thing.”

What started as an explanation of harm reduction principles became an unraveling of privilege and otherness in real time.

People tend to have a hard time utilizing harm reduction principles for issues that are close to them; this includes policymakers and legislative bodies who ultimately decide outcomes for people who use drugs, become incarcerated, etc. SO when it comes to legislate solutions to the opioid epidemic, for example, policymakers (vis a vis community members affected by the issue) tend to be louder and harsher regarding integration of harm reduction as a meaningful solution to the issue, even though we know they work.

Part of what I do in my own work is help institutions and individuals apply principles of harm reduction in their creation of programs, communications, and community engagement endeavors. Where there are people involved, there is trauma involved, and an important part of the work of social justice and social services is creating programming that minimizes harm to the participants, which frankly, is lost in most government and philanthropic programming.

The bottom line here is: harm reduction principles can be applied to literally every type of policy, institution, program, campaign, and social justice issue. Not sure how? Let’s chat.