Jeremy Maddock on ‘harm reduction’ and prohibition: “Both ideologies are immoral.”

Hello Gregory,

Glad to hear that you’re still one of the few people speaking rationally in Greater Victoria politics.

Prohibition of drugs is vindictive, imposing unnecessary pain on those who have not necessarily done harm to others. “Harm reduction” shields people from the natural consequences of their own negative behaviour. Both ideologies are immoral.

Drug abuse can be devastating. The results of this devastation might spur certain individuals into change and onto the right path. Shielding them from their own behaviour (i.e. harm reduction) will lull them into complacency, while the creation of additional punitive consequences (i.e. prohibition) will inevitably force them further into misery.

The only (potential) solution is principled Christian compassion, which differs from either punitive destruction or passive enabling. If (and only if) people want to change, they have to make a choice to change. Principled compassion *might* help them in this regard.

Food banks and low-cost housing can be a part of this, but as you correctly state, government should not be at the forefront. Government screws up most projects (and people) it touches. The only solution is to lower the tax burden on all of us and trust good people to show some compassion and guidance to those in need who genuinely want a better life.

 Jeremy Maddock

One Response to Jeremy Maddock on ‘harm reduction’ and prohibition: “Both ideologies are immoral.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: