【研究ノート Research Note】

共感的プラグマティズムとハーム・リダクション連続体

Compassionate Pragmatism on the Harm
Reduction Continuum:

Expanding the Options for Drug and Alcohol Addiction
Treatment in Japan
Sookja Suh* and Mitsuho Ikeda（*Niigata College of Nursing; Center for the Study of Communication-Design: CSCD Osaka
University）

Index
1. Introduction
2. The acceptance of harm reduction
3. The four salient features of the drug problem in Japan
3.1 Public health:approach rather thanapproach
3.2 Criminal justice: Zero-tolerance policy endorsed by penal populism
3.3 Health and social care: Shortage of treatment for addiction"
3.4 Peer-led initiatives
4. Harm reduction as compassionate pragmatism"
5. Conclusion: Communication-Design Input
Abstract
Harm reduction is considered to be a powerful approach to enhance the intervention
options for addiction problems and has been introduced to the majority of thecountries that report drug use problem. The term harm reduction" itself was
first brought to Japan in the early 1990s. Yet the discussion on integrating theharm reduction approach to the Japanese situation didn't start until recently.
The authors discuss (i) the four salient features in regard with the acceptance ofand the resistance to the idea of harm reduction, and (ii) the importance of thepeer-led initiatives in Japan, then, (iii) indicate the possibility of practice based oncompassionate pragmatism."
Key words
harm reduction, penal populism, peer-led initiatives

1.

Introduction

This brief article is to describe the current situation regarding the interventions for drug andalcohol addiction in Japan, addressing “compassionate pragmatism” on the continuum of harm reduction and zero‑tolerance/abstinence. Harm reduction is a conceptual framework and a practicemodel for public health and social policy that aims to mitigate to the fullest extent the life‑long63Compassionate Pragmatism on the Harm Reduction Continuum

health damage to individuals caused by drug use and to minimize the impact of drug problem onsociety. Historically, this approach emerged as the alternative to “zero‑tolerance” or “abstinence
only” policies in the 1970 s Europe [Eng 2007]. Harm reduction encompasses interventions andpolicies that seek primarily to reduce the harm of substance use or particular behaviors (pathological gambling)from it. In the process of implemen-tation, policy resistance is often raised [Rhodes et al. 2010].
In the intervention under the harm‑reduction approach, the elimination of risky behaviors is
not necessarily pursued. For instance, safer use of drugs with medical supervision (sisted treatment,

heroin‑as-Blankan et al. [2010]) would be the primary goal, rather than the immediate

secession of drug use. It is considered an abstinence‑oriented approach when being sober or clean
is set as the treatment goal of drug and alcohol addiction.
It may seem contradictory in the short‑term that continued use of drugs could be a methodof drug addiction treatment. However, being connected with a harm reduction program may laterlead the drug‑using clients to further healthcare resources before the severity of their addiction
intensiﬁes. The client may then be motivated to quit drug use. The evidence shows that individualson harm reduction program are less likely to utilize emergency medical services, generating lessmedical expense [McCarty et al. 2010], are more likely to have a job, and less likely to commit minor
criminal conducts [Rogers and Rueﬂi 2004]. This is one example of how harm reduction works tominimize overall risk and damage [Nuts et al. 2010] to individuals and to society.
In Japan, the abstinence‑oriented treatment model has long been the standard of addiction
care. As for the judicial policy for illicit drug use, zero‑tolerance has been consistently applied sincelate the 1940s up until the present. There is a belief in the validity of zero‑tolerance/abstinenceboth within the community of specialists and in society in general. This belief may be changing but
it seems steadfast at the moment.
The term “harm reduction” itself was ﬁrst introduced to Japan through the HIV/AIDS specialists in the early 1990s [Misago 2007: 206‑210]. Yet the discussion on integrating the harm reduction approach to the Japanese context didn t start until recently [Ishizuka 2013; Koto et al.

2006]. In the following sections, the authors outline some arguments about the addiction and drug
use problem in Japan and then, discuss the possibility of integrating the idea of harm reduction to
the existing measures and resources in Japan.

2.

The acceptance of harm reduction

Addiction is a multi‑faceted health problem and the areas of interventions range widely ‑public health, medicine, social welfare and law enforcement. Accordingly, the practice under theharm reduction approach includes a variety of activities.
In the research by Ritter and McDonald [2008], one hundred and eight interventions for drug
problems were counted and thirteen of them were coded and categorized as “harm reduction” in“Four Pillar” taxonomy ‑ prevention, law enforcement, treatment, harm reduction. Meanwhile,
Kellogg [2003] identiﬁed 26 interventions for drug and alcohol as harm reduction. In the both lists,social care services such as drop‑in centers, peer‑led activities or outreach are included as well as
needle exchange for preventing HIV and the use of drug consumption room (Table I). The heroin64

共感的プラグマティズムとハーム・リダクション連続体

maintenance and the other substitution maintenance are classiﬁed in the category of “treatment”
in the Four Pillar taxonomy, but are categorized as harm reduction in Kellogg s list.
All the activities on the lists serve to accomplish one or more of the following; (i) the reducingof an individual s health risks in order to prevent from early death, (ii) maintenance or enhancement of the level of social integration of drug users, and (iii) the minimization of social disturbanceand minor crimes related to drug use.
(Table I) Harm Reduction Intervention
Typology of Harm Reduction Intervention

Designated Drivers
Earlier Liquer Store Hours toPrevent Non-beverage Alcohol
Consumption
Naloxone Distribution
Overdose and Safe Injection
Information
Low Threshold Methadone Treatment
Dance Drug Testing
Safe Use/Injection Rooms
Low Bevarage Alcohol
Safety Glassware in Bars
Server Training
Needle/Syringe Exchange Prevention Model
Needle/Syringe Exchange Risk Model
Heroin Maintenance
Motivational Interviewing
Harm Reduction Psychotherapy
Medium/High Threshold Methadone Treatment
Acupuncture and Herbal Treatments
Substance Use Management
Moderation Interventions
Drop-in Centers
Buprenorphine-Naloxone Treatment
Naltrexone (Alcohol)Standard Methadone Treatment
Contingency Management Approaches Based on Gradual Use Reduction
Drug and Alcohol Education

Harm Reduction in Four Pillar Taxonomy

Staying Maintaining Getting
alive
healthbetter●●●Needle Syringe Programs
Outreach programsPeer education for users
Regulations (and/or legislation) in relation
to drug paraphernalia

●
●
●
●
●
●

Peer-led advocacy and support programs

Overdose prevention programs Peeradministered naloxone

●
●
●
●
●
●
●

Peer administered naloxone
HIV prevention and education programs
HIV/hepatitis coluntary counselling andtesting programs
Supervised Injecting facilities

●
●
●
●
●

(●)

●
●
●
●

●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●

●

●

●
●
●

The practice of harm reduction was originally developed as a practical response to the drug
problem. But only after a decade have societies became convinced of its utilitarian eﬀect. The areasthat harm reduction approach can be applied to are expanding to include alcohol, smoking, safe
abortion[Ritter and Cameron 2006; Eldman 2011].

As to country coverage, of the 158 countries reporting injecting drug use, ninety 91 include
harm reduction in national policy [Stone 2014]. The harm reduction approach is central in Europe,
Canada and Oceania, and insuﬃciently implemented in Russia and the United States where theresistance to it is strong. In nineteen Asian countries including China, Thailand and India, explicit
supportive reference to harm reduction is found in the national level policy documents. Harm reduction packages are developed in order to facilitate the implementation by the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the United Nations Oﬃce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
and the World Health Organization (WHO).

65

Compassionate Pragmatism on the Harm Reduction Continuum

Japan and the United States are the two big anti‑harm reduction advocates while being major
donors to UNODC. In fact, Japan was the only country to express directly doubt about needle exchange, concerned that distribution of needles might increase drug abuse at the 48th session of the
UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in 2005 [Jelsma 2005]. Obviously, Japan is one of a few
remaining countries resistant to the idea of harm reduction even after the majority of countries
have turned away from the old paradigm of zero‑tolerance.

3.

The four salient features of the drug problem in Japan

In Japan, the drug problem is considered to remain a small scale issue at present1). The statistics show low levels of lifetime use of illicit drugs [Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 2011](Table II). According to the biennial survey conducted in 2013, only 1.3 % of the population agedﬁfteen to sixty four nationwide responded that they had ever used illicit drugs in their lives. And
it is estimated that the prevalence rate of drug addiction is under 0.1% in the past year [Kawakami
et al. 2005]. This is certainly a contributing reason why harm reduction is not much of concern inJapan.
(Table II) Lifetime use (%)
Year

Population

CannabisAmph/
M‑AmphMDMA

Coccaine

HeroinNovel
Psycho‑actives

GER

2009

18‑64

25.6

3.7

2.4

3.3

‑

‑

FRA

2010

15‑64

32.1

1.7

2.4

3.7

‑

‑

ITA

2008

16‑64

32.0

3.2

3.0

7.0

‑

‑

UK

2006

16‑59

30.2

11.9

7.5

7.7

‑

‑

USA

2010

12‑

41.9

5.1

6.3

14.7

1.6

‑

JPN

2013

15‑64

1.1

0.5

0.3

0±

0±

0.4

When it comes to alcoholism, on the other hand, it is estimated 2.3 million (one out of every
twenty six drinkers) are alcoholic including undiagnosed cases. If that is combined with the numberof pathological gambling cases, the potential number in need of proper intervention cannot beviewed as small anymore. Accordingly, it is presumed that there are emergent health needs not
yet covered by the existing resources both in quantity and in quality.
To improve resources to meet these needs, it could be a possible solution to enhance intervention options by introducing the harm reduction approach. Henceforth, the authors are going todiscuss four salient features related to the social resistance against harm reduction.

3.1

Public health:rather thanapproach

In the public health discussion, preventive intervention is understood as a balance between
two schemes ‑and[Rose 1993]. When a health problem still

remains small, it is more eﬀective to give higher priority and concentrate on measures for thepeople facing at risk () rather than for the general population. This theory is not wellincorporated into the policies and their implementation for the addiction problem in Japan.

66

共感的プラグマティズムとハーム・リダクション連続体

For example, as one of the measures for the national level primary prevention, the Ministry of
Health in cooperation with the Ministry of Law has been practicing the “(No, younever do it!)” mass media campaign for twenty years. This campaign message is widely known inthe country and has contributed to the formulation of a social norm that drug use is evil, which
would appear to be a good outcome, apparently.
But, this success at the same time kept the drug use and addiction problem conﬁned to an issue in the moral and criminal context rather than being addressed in the health arena.

With

moral punishment prevalent in the society, the importance of early public health intervention for
the individuals at immediate risk would be understated and given the lowest priority. This idea isof course related to the misunderstanding that strengthening theapproach and secondary

prevention is wasting money on “future and current” drug users who are themselves to blame.
This way of thinking is the current reality in Japan and mass‑scale campaigns that are not followed by other type of interventions are related to two other negative consequences explained
below.

3.2

Criminal justice: Zero‑tolerance policy endorsed by penal populism

There is a routine discussion; harm reduction is not applicable to Japanese society because
there is no legal backdrop to implement harm reduction programs. As noted in the previous section, Japan holds a zero‑tolerance approach to the drug problem; laws are strictly enforced indrug‑related crimes regardless of the level of criminality. Therefore, decriminalization of drug use
hasn t yet been considered as an issue in the public domain. According to the latest criminal statistics, 20% of the prison inmates are drug‑related oﬀenders. They are often frequent oﬀenders.
The reason why drug‑related criminals tend to be frequent oﬀenders is quite simple; they are
addicted to the drug and they go back again to drug use after release, unless their addiction istreated. More important still are social reasons; a criminal history diminishes an individual s opportunities in life; ex‑prison inmates are more likely to face diﬃculties in re‑establishing their lives
in terms of proper housing, work, income and social relationships. Substance use ‑ drugs, alcohol

Zero-Tolerance
penal populism
reinforced
Public view “Zero-Tolerance
is necessary”

Harsh Punishment
for drug oﬀenders
with low criminality

Frequent oﬀencesocially marginalized

Criminal
history
DiminishedLife Chance(Chart I ) Cycle of Penal Populism

67Compassionate Pragmatism on the Harm Reduction Continuum

or something else, is chosen by an individual as a way to cope with the life. Committing further
crimes may be motivated by the need for money to buy drugs. In the case that an individual isyoung and with low criminality, the harsh punishment based on the zero‑tolerance policy could
open the way for him or her to enter to the marginal population. In fact, quite apart from drug
arguments, the matter of social rehabilitation and re‑integration require immediate action for improvement.
The social view in which drug users are malevolent can be endorsed by the chain of frequentoﬀense (see Chart I.). It justiﬁes the social view that taking strict measures against the drug problem is necessary. In such a cycle of, the politicians and government decision makers

are unwilling to move from a zero‑tolerance stance. However, the judicial professions and thegovernment oﬃcials in charge of correctional institutions are very much aware of this reproduction
cycle of drug oﬀence and the improvement plans have already been started.

3.3

Health and social care: Shortage of treatment for “addiction”

As explained before, the addiction problem has remained relatively small in scale in Japan.
This resulted in the lack of interest in addiction treatment among medical professions. Naturally, itmeans the shortage of trained therapists for addiction treatment. In medical facilities, the focus ison detoxiﬁcation and the treatment of psychotic symptoms related to drug/alcohol. They also provide patient education including peer support discussion, but the treatment for addictive behaviors
is available only in the limited number of hospitals and clinics.
In recent years, some leading psychiatrists and clinical psychologists have been actively providing training courses for the psychotherapies such as motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, anger management or social skills training. The situation surrounding individuals
who seek for treatment is surely becoming better but those in need for treatment still surpass thetherapists and group workers trained for the newly introduced therapies in number.
Sometimes, medical professionals support penal populism as they lack knowledge and experience, and misunderstand the addiction problem. Some of them avoid alcoholic or drug addicted
patients, labeling them as problematic. Even worse, some call the police to inform them of illicit
drug use, which is not mandatory. These episodes undermine help‑seeking behaviors of thosewishing treatment and recovery.

3.4

Peer‑led initiatives

A lack of care resources provided by trained specialists resulted in giving key‑role to peer‑led
initiatives. In Japan, social care and rehabilitation, ‑ after being released from prison or after
being discharged from the hospital ‑ are mainly provided by peer‑led organizations, the organizations run by recovering addicts and alcoholics.
There are more than seventy peer‑led facilities for individuals with addiction problem all overJapan. The majority of them are the facilities with a few recovering staﬀs and have occupancy ofless than ten residents. They provide housing support and residential/outpatient rehabilitation
program based on twelve steps guidance.

The twelve steps program is a typical abstinence‑ori-

ented approach. Accordingly, the ultimate goal of the programs provided by these peer‑led facilities is the establishment of life without using harmful substance.

68共感的プラグマティズムとハーム・リダクション連続体

4.

Harm reduction as “compassionate pragmatism”

On the other hand, in the daily practice of the peer‑led programs, keeping abstinence is notalways the absolute rule. For example, Relapse episodes are not regarded as a failure but as something that the clients learn about themselves from. The leaders and staﬀ know from their own
experience that recovery is a long process and that achieving stable abstinence is not easy. They
encourage the clients to disclose when relapse happens. If the client is still wishing to recover fromaddiction, the relapse episode is embraced as something that inevitably happens in the recovery
process.
In the peer‑led initiatives in Japan, abstinence is the ﬁnal goal of the treatment. But, as a matter of fact, their approach is (i) low‑threshold and emphasizes (ii) keeping oneself on the recovery
track (“”). Their practice resembles what Marlett [2011] calls “compas-

sionate pragmatism.”
Harm reduction originated from a practical response for HIV among Injecting Drug Users(IDUs), and was an invention of peer‑to‑peer activities. Then, it was propagated and incorporated
into the formal public scheme as a “pragmatic” approach that balances public health needs andpublic order. But in this context, its connotation is a “compromise” to the complexity of the drug
problem. At the beginning, harm reduction was a practice of self‑help and empowerment, which
seems to have disguised. But the practice similar to its original philosophy of harm reduction is now
recognized in the peer‑led activities in Japan. The rehabilitation programs in the peer‑led organizations provide safe environments for recovery; the staﬀ, and of course, the clients never say “”

to drug use but one is not blamed for using drugs.
In the ﬁrst place, we should note that harm reduction and abstinence‑oriented interventions
form a continuum and that they are not mutually exclusive [Kellogg 2003]. The harm reduction
approach focuses on the beneﬁts to the individuals who have not yet sought treatment and it functions as a bridging component to the abstinence‑oriented treatment. Recognizing this point should
allow one to separate the discussion on harm reduction from the moral judgment and victim blaming.
(Table III)
Six Core Ideas in Harm Reduction [Tatarsky 2003]
1 Meeting the client as an individual
2 Starting where the patient is.
3 Assuming the client has strengths that can be supported
4 Accepting small incremental changes as steps as the right direction
5 Not holding abstinence as the necessary preconditions of the therapy before really getting to know the individual
6 Developing a collaborative, empowering relationship with the client

69

Compassionate Pragmatism on the Harm Reduction Continuum

5.

Conclusion: Communication-Design Input

In this article, the authors described the Japan s drug situation in regard with possibility of
introducing harm reduction approach. The followings are discussed; (i) in Japan, the treatment andrehabilitation needs for addiction outnumbers the supply and the care options available are still
limited, (ii) in the cycle of the zero‑tolerance policy endorsed by penal populism, drug and addiction
problems raise less public concerns, and (iii) in this circumstance, the peer‑led organizations began
the support activities for addiction problems with their own “compassionate pragmatism” which isthe very basic of the harm reduction approach.
The authors conclude this brief article with a suggestion for the‑re-garding the addiction problem in Japan. The purpose of the communication is to activate discussions to change the cycle of penal populism and to overcome the binary decision making of “
” so as to enhance intervention options:
The Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) strategy for alcohol and drug addiction
problem should be planned with the following two principles constructing the meta‑message.
(I)‑: when an individual is facing a crucial health risk, it is not judicial inter-

vention but appropriate treatment and care that should come ﬁrst.
(II): harm reduction is not a ﬁnal salvation for those in miserable condition caused by addiction. Giving care and support for the people who need help is not a charity but we are obliged to do so in terms of human rights justice. Seeking health is a basic
human right.

Notes1) However, the recent epidemiological studies on substance misuse imply changing patterns ofdrug use behaviors and clinical manifestations. Among the generation under 40, use of cannabis
and novel psychoactive drug (so‑called designer drugs) is rapidly increasing while methamphetamine is the choice of the older [Wada et al. 2014]. Matsumoto et al. [2011] indicated the increasein addiction or misuse cases of prescribed medicine (. benzodiazepines, methylphenidate).

These research ﬁndings suggest that it is urgent to raise public awareness of this newly emerged
drug problem. The current situation calls for early stage response.
References
Blanken, Peter et al. (2010) “Heroin‑assisted treatment in the Netherlands: History, ﬁndings, andinternational context,”, 20 (S) : 924‑977.

Eng, Peter S.C. (2007) “History of Harm Reduction· Provenance and Politics, Part 1,”, 1(2), 9pp. ( http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org)
Ishizuka, Shin‑ichi (ed.) (2013)[in Japanese], Tokyo: Nihon‑Hyoron‑Sha.

戦：日本版ドラッグ・コートを越えて』日本評論社.

70

石塚伸一（2013）『薬物政策への新たなる挑＊共感的プラグマティズムとハーム・リダクション連続体

Jelsma, Martin (2005) TNI Drug Policy Brieﬁng Nr. 13, April 2005 Transnational Institute (http://
www.undrugcontrol.info/images/stories/brief13.pdf) .
Kawakami, Norito et al. (2005) “Twelve‑month prevalence, severity, and treatment of common
mental disorders in communities in Japan: preliminary ﬁnding from the World Mental HealthJapan Survey 2002‑2003,”, 59: 441‑452.

Kellogg, Scott H. (2003) “ On Gradualism and the building of the harm reduction ‑ abstinence
continuum,”, 25: 241‑247.

Koto, Goro et al. (2006) “Harm reduction and in jecting drug use: In the era of HIV/AIDS,”, 21(3): 184‑195.
McCarty, Dennis et al. (2010) “Methadone maintenance and the cost and utilization of health careamong individuals dependent on opioids in a commercial health plan,”, 111: 235‑240.
Marlatt , G Alan et al. (2001) “Integrating harm reduction therapy and traditional substance abuse
treatment,”, 33: 13‑21.

Marlatt, G. Alan and Larimer, Mary E. (eds.) (2011)‑, The Guilford Press.

Matsumoto, Toshihiko et al. (2014) “Clinical features of patients with designer‑drug‑related disorder in Japan: A comparison with patients with methamphetamine‑ and hypnotic/anxiolytic‑ related disorders,”
Misago, Chizuru (2007), 68: 374‑382.
[in Japanese], Tokyo: NTT Publications. *三砂ちづる（2007）『コミットメントの力』NTT出版．
Nutt, David J. et al. (2010) “Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis,”, 376:

1558‑65.
Rhodes, Tim et al. (2010) “Policy resistance to harm reduction for drug users and potential eﬀect ofchange,”2010; 341: c3439.

Ritter, Alison and Cameron, Jacques (2006) “A review of the eﬃcacy and eﬀectiveness of harm reduction strategies for alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs,”, 25: 611‑624.

Ritter, Alison and McDonald, David (2008) “Illicit drug policy: Scoping the interventions and taxonomies,”, 15: 15‑35.

Rogers, Susan J and Rueﬂi, Terry (2004) “Does harm reduction programming make a diﬀerence inthe lives of highly marginalized, at‑risk drug users?”, 1:7 doi:10.1186/1477‑

7517‑1‑7. http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/1/1/7
Rose, Goefry (1993) The Strategy of Preventive Medicine, OUP Oxford.
Stone, Katie (ed.) (2014), Harm Reduction International,

London (http://www.ihra.net/ﬁles/2015/02/16/GSHR2014.pdf).
Tatarsky, A. (2003) “Harm reduction psychotheraphy: Extending the reach of traditional substanceuse treatment,”, 25: 245‑253.

Wada, Kiyoshi et al. (2014) “The nationwide questionnaire survey on drinking, cigarette smoking
and drug use (year 2013), [in Japanese]” The annual report 2013 for The Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare Health Labour Sciences Research Grant. *和田清他（2014） 飲酒・喫煙・くすりの使用についてのアンケート調査（2013年）通称：薬物使用に関する全国住民調査（2013年）,
平成25年度厚生労働科学研究費補助金（医薬品・医療機器等レギュラトリーサイエンス総合研究事業）分担研究報告書.

71Compassionate Pragmatism on the Harm Reduction Continuum

Japanese Abstract

共感的プラグマティズムとハーム・リダクション連続体：
日本における薬物・アルコール依存症ケアの選択肢を増やすために
徐淑子（新潟県立看護大学、大阪大学コミュニケーションデザイン・センター：CSCD）
池田光穂（大阪大学 CSCD）
キーワード
ハーム・リダクション、厳罰要求、当事者運動
本稿では、日本における依存症からの回復支援に、ハーム・リダクションの考えがどのように寄与するか、その可能性を検討する。ハーム・リダクションを導入することの根拠は、飲酒・薬物乱用等による健康被害が進んだり、生活再建が著しく困難になったりする前に、個人をケア資源にむすびつけ、依存の深刻化を防ぐことができるということである。他方、日本のアルコール・薬物依存症への介入理念（ポリシー）は、長い間、禁酒・断薬、司法における厳罰主義が標準とされてきた。それゆえ、日本では、ハーム・リダクションについての誤解と抵抗が専門家の間でも見受けられることがある。本稿では、日本における依存症者と依存症介入における 4 つの特徴を指摘する。そして「共感的プラグマティズム」と「ハーム・リダクション連続体」の考え方を紹介して、日本の当事者運動から生まれたサポート・プロ
グラムを位置づける。

72

TitleCompassionate Pragmatism on the Harm Reduction Continuum: Expanding the Options for Drug and Alcohol Addiction
Treatment in Japan

Author(s)Sookja, Suh; Mitsuho, Ikeda

Citation

Communication-Design. 13 P.63-P.72

Issue Date

2015-09-30

Text Version publisher
URL

http://hdl.handle.net/11094/53836

DOI
RightsOsaka University