2008 Woodie Awards
Harm reduction
Anastacia Cosner
Issue date: 11/30/07 Section: Opinion
The philosophy of harm reduction that forms the basis of the Good Samaritan policy I hope to enact through the University Senate this year is straightforward. This excerpt from the website of the nonprofit organization Harm Reduction Coalition (www.harmreduction.org) summarizes the guiding principle quite well: "[A public policy approach of harm reduction] accepts, for better and for worse, that licit and illicit drug use is part of our world and chooses to work to minimize its harmful effects rather than simply ignore or condemn them." This acceptance does not indicate "giving up" on the drug problem but taking a positive and effective approach to solving it.
A few questions must be raised: Does this policy, current or proposed, immediately address a harm that students face? And does it effectively manage the potential dangers to one's health and well-being by reducing harm associated with the risky behavior? Will the students at the university be better off if they are ensured that the university's first priority is the safety of its students, regardless of the questionable decisions they may make in choosing to use alcohol or drugs? Or will we be better off with a policy of strictly zero tolerance, punishing equally the students who call 911 for EMS to save a life and the students whose neighbors call the police to break up a rowdy party?
Warren Kelley said in Nov. 26's "Samaritan policy may present conflicts" that one of his reservations about adopting a Good Samaritan policy here at the university is justified because "we look at other schools that are like us. It would make us pause to find out why they don't have it." It has been two decades since Len Bias died of a cocaine overdose on campus before EMTs could arrive, and three years of student advocacy for a more sensible approach to drug policies. Now is the time for our administration to take some leadership. Sometimes it can be uncomfortable to be a leader, especially when trying to delicately balance public image, health and student well-being, among other factors that drive the (lack of) incentive university administrators have in adopting change.
For once, we need to stop worrying about how to legislate away drug use, because, like it or not, its presence in human society is here to stay. We are not likely to have our choices about relatively commonplace risky behavior shaped by policy - especially the campus policy - because we are dealing with such an unstable, dynamic and experimental population: college students. Instead of concerning ourselves with "how it will look," we need to make the shift to being concerned about how the maximum number of students can avoid the most harm.
Now in my junior year and second term as Students for Sensible Drug Policy president, I'm realizing that here at my collegiate halftime, I, along with many others, have been screaming my lungs out for concrete reform of current campus drug policies. I am not so much discouraged as I am frustrated with the painfully slow process of policy change on this campus. I know the policy can be sufficiently researched and discussed in order to reach a conclusion by the end of the year. Now the senate and other policy-making bodies need to share this belief, so they can efficiently implement and change policies, as that is their sole purpose. How are elected student representatives expected to do their best and perform their duties when we have a maximum of four years here and most official policy changes take two to three years at best? My term as undergraduate senator will end after next semester, and, if things continue on their current path, I may not even get to see my proposed legislation leave our committee before then. The time for reform is now.
Anastacia Cosner is a junior communication major, a senator for the College of Arts and Humanities, president of Students for Sensible Drug Policy and secretary of the SSDP Board of Directors. She can be reached at anastaciacosner@gmail.com.
A few questions must be raised: Does this policy, current or proposed, immediately address a harm that students face? And does it effectively manage the potential dangers to one's health and well-being by reducing harm associated with the risky behavior? Will the students at the university be better off if they are ensured that the university's first priority is the safety of its students, regardless of the questionable decisions they may make in choosing to use alcohol or drugs? Or will we be better off with a policy of strictly zero tolerance, punishing equally the students who call 911 for EMS to save a life and the students whose neighbors call the police to break up a rowdy party?
Warren Kelley said in Nov. 26's "Samaritan policy may present conflicts" that one of his reservations about adopting a Good Samaritan policy here at the university is justified because "we look at other schools that are like us. It would make us pause to find out why they don't have it." It has been two decades since Len Bias died of a cocaine overdose on campus before EMTs could arrive, and three years of student advocacy for a more sensible approach to drug policies. Now is the time for our administration to take some leadership. Sometimes it can be uncomfortable to be a leader, especially when trying to delicately balance public image, health and student well-being, among other factors that drive the (lack of) incentive university administrators have in adopting change.
For once, we need to stop worrying about how to legislate away drug use, because, like it or not, its presence in human society is here to stay. We are not likely to have our choices about relatively commonplace risky behavior shaped by policy - especially the campus policy - because we are dealing with such an unstable, dynamic and experimental population: college students. Instead of concerning ourselves with "how it will look," we need to make the shift to being concerned about how the maximum number of students can avoid the most harm.
Now in my junior year and second term as Students for Sensible Drug Policy president, I'm realizing that here at my collegiate halftime, I, along with many others, have been screaming my lungs out for concrete reform of current campus drug policies. I am not so much discouraged as I am frustrated with the painfully slow process of policy change on this campus. I know the policy can be sufficiently researched and discussed in order to reach a conclusion by the end of the year. Now the senate and other policy-making bodies need to share this belief, so they can efficiently implement and change policies, as that is their sole purpose. How are elected student representatives expected to do their best and perform their duties when we have a maximum of four years here and most official policy changes take two to three years at best? My term as undergraduate senator will end after next semester, and, if things continue on their current path, I may not even get to see my proposed legislation leave our committee before then. The time for reform is now.
Anastacia Cosner is a junior communication major, a senator for the College of Arts and Humanities, president of Students for Sensible Drug Policy and secretary of the SSDP Board of Directors. She can be reached at anastaciacosner@gmail.com.
Submit a letter to the editor or post a comment below.
Be the first to comment on this story