PREEMPTION OF HARM REDUCTION PRACTICES DURING THE US OPIOID CRISIS

Abstract

Harm reduction programs such as syringe exchange programs and safe injection facilities are progressive ways to treat substance abuse disorder. Their implementation is continuously argued and grappled with amongst government institutions. State and local governments agree and disagree whether these programs are effective and should be implemented in their communities. Governments that find these programs ineffective may not consent to their implementation and can utilize tools at their disposal to impede their establishment. State governments can utilize their legislative power to obstruct the approval of harm reduction programs. Local governments, while not having the sovereign status of a state government, are nonetheless able to wield their own devices to impede harm reduction programs authorization. When these two government institutions disagree on whether to authorize harm reduction programs this intersection of opinions can produce intriguing results. The crossover of government differences of opinions can affect the overall outcomes of the programs. The difference of opinions on how to proceed with these substance use treatment programs creates an intersection of policy making and can lead to ineffective implementations. Exploring examples where government institutions disagree on this topic demonstrates how these programs can exist in spite of not being fully accepted, as well how differences of opinions affect the program’s target audience, and impacts the positive outcomes produced by SEPs and SIFs.