Harm Reduction
As opposed to more radical responses to immoral and risky lifestyles, harm reduction is a certain healthcare philosophy that approaches such lifestyles from a just and social point of view. Most frequent risky lifestyles are drug and alcohol abuse, and casual sex. Harm reduction is rather a new alternative which is aimed at reducing the risk and possible harm from these lifestyles. Unlike other healthcare philosophies, harm reduction does not intend to abolish such risky and dangerous lifestyles. Rather it accepts that abusers would willfully engage in such activities. Thus, the central idea is that if they would anyway opt for such risks and potential harm, let then this harm be reduced and these individuals less exposed to healthcare problems and other risks. Furthermore, the philosophy supports the rights of those risk takers for the same social security and healthcare. Because of the so facilitating and promoting nature of the approach, as the critics view it, this approach has become very controversial in the world, especially in the United States.
Harm reduction practices are based on various policies that are aimed to reduce harm for abusers and risk takers. The broad categories of harm reduction policies include providing crucial information about safer sex and drug uses, arranging safe injection rooms for addicts to prevent disease spreading, controlling the distribution of alcoholic beverages for homeless shelters to prevent chronic alcoholic from drinking non-beverage alcohol products, and amendment of penalties for drugs. 
Some advocates of harm reduction claim that prohibition of soft drugs like marijuana is old-fashioned. Moreover, they claim that this prohibition is actually useless and ineffective, because despite the laws soft drug users still exist. Craig Reinarman and Harry Levine, in their book Crack in America, explain that such prohibition of drugs (although they referred to crack cocaine) has actually served as a cause for creation of harm reduction movement, because the old policy proved useless. Marijuana use, for example, is even used in medical treatment programs, and supporters of harm reduction argue that healthcare risks of marijuana use are rather low. Thus, risk reduction policies regarding the matter include providing high-quality marijuana in cafes and decriminalization of the drug, if kept in small quantities or grown for personal usage. Such policies reduce the risk of using low quality product (the harm), and also challenge the diminish market of marijuana. 
Testing hard drugs for harmful chemicals has also become a regular activity, supported by harm reductionists. Volunteers from non-profit organizations test samples of pills brought by users in order to prevent these users from taking low quality substances from the underground market. Pills and crystals sold illegally are often impure and contain harmful chemicals. So, anyone can test his or her pill and make sure the drug is pure. This way, such organizations simply reduce the harm of taking low quality crack, ecstasy, or other drug. 
Safe injection sites and needle exchange are among the most popular - yet the most controversial - harm reduction policies. Safe injection sites are places where drug addicts can receive a clean needle and a dose of a drug for free, and use these in safe environment. The idea behind such allegedly immoral activity is that these people would find a way out to have that single next shot. But due to the risk of catching some disease or injecting unclear chemicals, or committing a crime, certain organizations that support harm reduction philosophy provide such services to addicts. Barring the actual harm and risk reduction, providing high quality drugs for free discourages illegal trade of drugs on the streets. Less effective, but still significant, is the needle exchange practice, which provides safe clean needles and syringes to anybody for free. Such policy significantly reduces the risk of catching diseases (or HIV virus) from used needles. 
The Dutch, as opposed to Americans, as described in Adam Smith’s America's Lonely Drug War, have implemented a unique drug policy, where they treated addiction as a health problem, and decriminalized use of drugs completely. Harm reductionist approach appeared to be much more successful to fight drug-related crime, diseases, and drug use in general in the long-term.
The outcomes and the effects of harm reduction policies have been questionable for a long time. The Dutch drug policy suffered a huge increase in drug use (especially marijuana) amongst youngsters during the year after implementation, reports Susan Kaplin in her report The Effects Of Harm Reduction Vs Harm Prevention: An International Assessment. Critics of harm reduction philosophy predicted this outcome, because legalizing something which had been banned would certainly tempt many to try during the first several years. However, such drug policies based on harm reduction like in the Netherlands are aimed at long-term improvement. Interestingly, the American Academy for Educational Development conducted another  study in New York Does harm reduction programming make a difference in the lives of highly marginalized, at-risk drug users? in 2004 to find out the effects of harm reduction drug policies. They have discovered that “there was significant client progress across most outcomes from entrance in the harm reduction program to the last follow-up assessment.”  However, it is important to note that the policies and the circumstance under which the participants have been were rather different, because in the Netherlands, methadone has been given out for free to heroine addicts (1993 study), and the New York research was limited in time, scale, space, and offered only support, counseling, and healthcare services by mobile units (2004 study). Thus, the New York study shows that there is enough evidence to believe that harm reduction practices do help reduce drug related harm, and improve the health of subjects. 
Harm reductionist philosophy requires complete rethinking of the approach to war against drug and alcohol abuse, and other risky lifestyles. As evidences have shown, harm reduction does help to improve the well-being and reduce harm in drug addicts. However, if implemented too quickly with decriminalization of drugs, the younger population may engage in mass drug abuse, as was in the Netherlands in the 80’s and 90’s. Thus, harm reduction should certainly be considered as one of the means in fighting against drug-related problems in society, but these harm reduction policies should be implemented accurately and carefully, so that they do not promote or encourage even more drug abuse. Ultimately, harm reduction philosophy is based on accepting the inevitable and making it less harmful, instead of blindly pretending that laws are obeyed. 
Bibliography
1.	MacMaster, S. (2004). Harm Reduction: a new perspective on substance abuse services. Social Work. v49 i3 p356.
2.	Reinarman, C. and Levine H. (1997). Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice. University of California Press. Ch 10, 17.
3.	Smith, A. (2001). America's Lonely Drug War. Mother Jones.
4.	Does harm reduction programming make a difference in the lives of highly marginalized, at-risk drug users? (2004). Academy of Educational Development. Retrieved May 4th 2006 from Harm Reduction Journal at http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/1/1/7
5.	Kaplin, S. (1994). The Effects Of Harm Reduction Vs Harm Prevention: An International Assessment. Retrieved May 4th 2006 from Sarnia Online at http://www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/experts/effects.htm