As a result, a wide variety of sensible policy modifications that fail to fit the ideological predilections of either extreme simply do not get discussed. The only way to close the gap between what we know how to do and what we are actually doing is to develop a third way of thinking about drug policy. Using only existing knowledge and resources, the nation's drug problem could be much smaller five years from now than it is today. Repairing our broken policies will require a clearer vision of what the drug problem is and more moderate expectations about what drug-control policies can actually accomplish. Current policies, which largely reflect the drug-warrior approach, aim above all at reducing drug use.
Treatment is very much an afterthought.
The most widely debated, though not even nearly the most important, example is needle exchange, which aims to reduce the transmission of HIV and other pathogens from needle-sharing among drug injectors. Some advocates of harm reduction also assert that the legalization of drug use and distribution would decrease addicts' need to steal to finance their habits and the violence associated with the drug trade. What all this ignores is that the total damage associated with drug use depends not only on its harmfulness but also on its extent. Legal drugs would indeed do less harm to each user, but there would be many more users. Harm-reduction measures short of legalization also need to be scrutinized for their risks of increasing the extent of drug use, much greater in some cases than in others.