Washington, DC – Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) voiced strong opposition to the House of Representatives’ recent approval of the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl (HALT) Act. The organization argued that the bill reinforces the failed strategies of the “War on Drugs” and ignores evidence-based solutions to the ongoing overdose crisis.
The HALT Act, which passed with a vote of 312 to 108, aims to permanently classify all fentanyl-related substances as Schedule I drugs and expands mandatory minimum sentences. Critics, including FJP, are concerned that the legislation lacks provisions for substances that may be inert or possess medical value.
Amy Fettig, Acting Co-Executive Director of FJP, stated, “Our nation has spent trillions and destroyed millions of lives in pursuit of harsh penalties, yet the results have been devastating—an exploding prison population and an increasingly dangerous drug supply.” She added, “This bill does not prioritize saving lives; instead, it serves as a form of political posturing that undermines community well-being.”
Fettig emphasized the need for a shift in focus: “Congress should redirect its efforts toward viable solutions that include treatment, harm reduction strategies, and overdose prevention, rather than focusing on incarceration.” She urged the Senate to reject the HALT Act, declaring, “We need real solutions that can save lives and foster healthier communities.”
As the bill moves to the Senate, advocates are calling for a reevaluation of drug policy strategies. Fettig concluded, “Our communities deserve a better approach—one that prioritizes expanding access to treatment and harm reduction services over outdated and ineffective punitive measures.” The debate over the HALT Act has sparked renewed discussions around the need for comprehensive drug policy reform
“Fettig emphasized the need for a shift in focus: “Congress should redirect its efforts toward viable solutions that include treatment, harm reduction strategies, and overdose prevention, rather than focusing on incarceration.” She urged the Senate to reject the HALT Act, declaring, “We need real solutions that can save lives and foster healthier communities.”
Harm reduction . . . is not.
Why not? You should read, Chasing the Scream, best explanation I have read of how harm reduction works…
Harm reduction is a public health approach aimed at minimizing the negative consequences of certain behaviors, particularly those related to drug use, rather than focusing solely on prohibition or abstinence. It acknowledges that risky behaviors will continue to some extent and seeks to reduce their harmful effects on individuals and society.
Common harm reduction strategies include:
• Needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of diseases like HIV and hepatitis.
• Supervised injection sites where individuals can use drugs under medical supervision to reduce overdoses.
• Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid addiction, such as methadone or buprenorphine.
• Fentanyl test strips to detect dangerous substances in street drugs.
• Safe sex education and condom distribution to prevent sexually transmitted infections.
The philosophy behind harm reduction is pragmatic and rooted in public health rather than moral judgment. Critics argue that it enables risky behaviors, while proponents say it saves lives and provides a bridge to treatment and recovery.
Color me critic 😐
Color me critical of the current system which doesn’t work
What are you talking about? The current system IS harm reduction. The current ALLOWS for people to check in to shelters without being clean & sober. I know, I’ve talked to addicts and substance abuse counselors over the last four decades and seen how the system has broken down BECAUSE of harm reduction. You are impugning the very things you are exposing 🙁
But “harm reduction” is, #ahem#, “evidence based”, so must therefore be anointed by the hand of God its self, I mean Science.
I categorically disagree, the current system is definitely not harm reduction. One of the things that the author talks about in silent scream, is a huge part of the danger in drug use is the fact that it’s illegal and therefore you have no idea what you are actually injecting into your body. That leads to overdoses when you inject or ingest more than you can take. It leads to infections and corrosion of arteries because you are injecting junk into your veins. There is a whole bunch that we have learned about addiction and how better to treat addiction. No, what I would recommend would be something along the lines of what they did in Vancouver where they have safe injection sites administered by trained medical personnel with carefully controlled doses that eliminates overdoses and other health problems, plus eliminates violence because there is no longer prohibition and the need to steal to obtain the site, and then ways to start treating the underlying problems that lead to addiction. This is very different from what we do – radically different – but proven in limited runs to work much better than the current system.
For instance from Chasing the Scream: “Just as a large majority of drinkers did not become alcoholics, a large majority of users of these products did not become addicted to drugs. They used opiates as “props for the unstable nervous system,” like a person who drinks wine at the end of a stressful day at work. A small number did get hooked—but even among the addicted, the vast majority continued to work and maintain relatively normal live. An official government study found that before drug prohibition properly kicked in, three quarters of self-described addicts (not just users—addicts) had steady and respectable jobs.”
He also notes that once prohibition of alcohol ended the violence largely stopped: “All that violence—the violence produced by prohibition—ended. That’s why today, it is impossible to imagine gun-toting kids selling Heineken shooting kids on the next block for selling Corona Extra. The head of Budweiser does not send hit men to kill the head of Coors.”
I’m sure you’ll appreciate the humor there, but the point is largely accurate.
A further quote: ” By the mid-1980s, the Nobel Prize–winning economist and right-wing icon Milton Friedman calculated that it caused an additional ten thousand murders a year in the United States.”
I pulled up Friedman’s article, happy to send it to you if you are interested.