The Facts About Harm Reduction, from Steve

Good response, David. Keep up the good fight.

I run into this all the time: "Law enforcement created the problem. Harm reduction is the answer."

It sounds bogus to me, so I had a look at the numbers. On the one hand, we have Vancouver, which has been actively pursuing primarily "harm reduction" methods since 1989. On the other, we have New York City, which has been actively pursuing law enforcement initiatives since 1989. New York now has three times as many cops per thousand residents as Vancouver.

In 1990, the crime rates in BC were a bit higher than what they were in New York City. 1990 is the worst year in New York's history since 1963 (which is as far back as I could find records online).

Crime rates have gone down up BC slightly (about 2%) while they have fallen dramatically in NYC (about 70%).

In the past three city administrations (who were the most outspoken advocates of "harm reduction", Vancouver's violent crime rate has slowly risen. HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C have skyrocketed (from about 3% of needle users to 30% and 90% respectively).

Vancouver now has a 13% higher violent crime rate than New York City EVER did. And our property crime rate is fairly steady at 30% higher than New York at its worst.

And since the "Safe" injection site has opened, the overdose death rate has gone up in Vancouver, while it has gone down in the rest of the province.

One of the most significant reductions in crime we've seen in recent years has been auto theft (-30%), due mainly to the bait car program, A LAW ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE.

The record clearly shows that law enforcement works and "harm reduction" doesn't.

Incidentally, I'm enclosing "harm reduction" in quotes for more than just the obvious reason that it's not actually reducing any harm. In some jurisdictions, "harm reduction", by definition, includes "reducing the supply of drugs". In Vancouver, the definition has been altered to mean "enabling and medically supporting drug use".