Conversations around harm reduction and crack pipes

February 10, 2022
Photo: Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images

On February 7, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a grant program to “enhance overdose and other types of prevention activities to help control the spread of infectious diseases.” 

Below, we break down how different people are interpreting this event, and what values or information inform this perspective. Our goal isn’t to change your mind — it’s to show how rational people can understand this same event so differently.

NOTE: WE PRESENT TWO OPPOSING PERSPECTIVES AS EXAMPLES FOR HOW PEOPLE MAY REACH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE SAME TOPIC. YOUR VIEW MAY DIFFER, AND THAT’S OKAY. FOR THIS PARTICULAR STORY, PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT ARE MORE VOCAL.
What else is each side focusing on?
  • Drug addiction is a medical issue — not a choice.
  • Safe smoking kits save lives by  reducing the spread of infectious disease and connecting people with treatment and recovery services.
  • Biden is using tax dollars to pay for crack pipes.
  • Trump had a real plan for revitalizing black communities.
  • Biden is providing crack pipes to minority communities in the name of racial equity.
  • The government should focus on ending drug addiction, not facilitate it.
The Narrative

To the left, drug safety kits are the best way to minimize harm associated with drug addiction. We shouldn’t discount any measure that can save lives and direct addicts to other support services.

The right’s obsession with “crack pipes” is just thinly veiled racism based on inaccurate information — continuing the tradition of stigmatizing drug use in communities of color.

To the right, the Biden administration is taking away money from hard working Americans to provide harmful crack pipes to addicts. This is degrading, not supporting, black communities and racial equality.

Free COVID treatments and community college would be a much better use of our tax dollars.

How could a reasonable person come to think this?

To many on the left

  • Reducing harm is a key value to good governance. 
  • Research has proven drug safety kits effective for reducing overdoses and other harms around addiction, so this is a good way to protect people struggling with drug addictions. 

 

Temporarily setting aside your own views on the program, if the left’s assumptions above are true, is it reasonable to support programs that provide drug safety kits in the interest of reducing harm?

To many on the right

  • Fiscal responsibility is a key value to good governance. 
  • Spending millions of dollars on crack pipes proves that Biden is incapable of prioritizing measures that would benefit Americans. 

 

Temporarily setting aside your own views on the program, if the right’s assumptions above are true, is it reasonable to oppose spending millions of dollars on a program that facilitates drug use?

What does each side see as fact?

  • Drug addiction is a medical issue — not a choice.
  • Safe smoking kits save lives by  reducing the spread of infectious disease and connecting people with treatment and recovery services.
  • Biden is using tax dollars to pay for crack pipes.
  • Trump had a real plan for revitalizing black communities.
  • Biden is providing crack pipes to minority communities in the name of racial equity.
  • The government should focus on ending drug addiction, not facilitate it.

The Narrative

To the left, drug safety kits are the best way to minimize harm associated with drug addiction. We shouldn’t discount any measure that can save lives and direct addicts to other support services.

The right’s obsession with “crack pipes” is just thinly veiled racism based on inaccurate information — continuing the tradition of stigmatizing drug use in communities of color.

To the right, the Biden administration is taking away money from hard working Americans to provide harmful crack pipes to addicts. This is degrading, not supporting, black communities and racial equality.

Free COVID treatments and community college would be a much better use of our tax dollars.

How could a reasonable person come to believe this?

To many on the left

  • Reducing harm is a key value to good governance. 
  • Research has proven drug safety kits effective for reducing overdoses and other harms around addiction, so this is a good way to protect people struggling with drug addictions. 


Temporarily setting aside your own views on the program, if the left’s assumptions above are true, is it reasonable to support programs that provide drug safety kits in the interest of reducing harm?

To many on the right

  • Fiscal responsibility is a key value to good governance. 
  • Spending millions of dollars on crack pipes proves that Biden is incapable of prioritizing measures that would benefit Americans. 


Temporarily setting aside your own views on the program, if the right’s assumptions above are true, is it reasonable to oppose spending millions of dollars on a program that facilitates drug use?

All public spending involves trade-offs  there are always other ways public money could be spent. Because our unique experiences and values impact how we understand the world, reasonable people reach different conclusions of what is a “good” use of tax dollars, and that’s okay.

When we recognize the values we bring into this debate, and acknowledge that they are not universal even though they feel obvious and natural to us, it’s easier to also accept that others may reach a different, reasonable conclusion based on their unique set of values and beliefs.

Sources
Further reading

What do you think? Do you agree with one side, or do you fall somewhere in between? Give us feedback on TwitterInstagram, and Facebook, or by emailing info@narrativesproject.com.