Drug Availability in the United States
The war on drugs in the United States has become a largely controversial issue over the last couple of years. Public officials all over the country have rallied against the wastefulness. Many point out that this struggle consumes too much of public money while producing little result. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center last year, three-quarters of the country population believe that the war on drugs in the United States is failing. The U.S. government spends millions promoting the case of drug-free America, while large corporations make drugs responsible for thousands of deaths by overdose every year available with a click of a mouse.  The dividing line between what is legal and what is illegal seems vaguer then ever. 
 There is an obvious cliche in the way majority has lost their confidence in the drug war while general public still supports its tactics.  People still believe that arresting and locking up drug users and dealers could really help the case, even thought the U.S. prisons are filled with nonviolent offenders.  Another way that seems to have risen support among the general public is halting the import of dangerous substances.  However, even largely synchronized efforts to do so have only contributed to the development of a more sophisticated network of international organized groups of criminals which find the country's drug market even more attractive. 
Abstinence-only orientation advocated by social workers and popular among general public coincides with the governmental policies on complete prohibition of dangerous substances in the United States. Although alcohol remains legal, the under-age drinking is a subject to similar zero-tolerance mandates. Most treatment centers in the country rely heavily on the 12-step model of treatment requiring service users to commit to a complete abstinence. However, abstinence may not be a practical approach as S. MacMaster, S. points out in his article Harm Reduction: a new perspective on substance abuse services. According to MacMaster, many drug users are unable to abstain and therefore, often drop out because of their inability to complete treatment programs. Such orientation of abstinence-abuse services brings up several concerns. First, such services view individuals not interested in complete abstinence or unable to do so immediately as unservable. Second, many such treatment programs may not be available to everyone in need because of financial constrains. These are only few of the problems resulting from present complete abstinence orientation; it has been advocated that present services have little or no connection with individual needs of their clients. Harm reduction concept advocated by MacMaster, in contrast, provides for individuals willing to be engaged in services but not seeking immediate abstinence. There are several arguments that can be used to support this view. Traditional efforts to eliminate drug abuse have proven ineffective; therefore, the society should accept that substance use is and will remain part of our world in the future. This means that we should concentrate more on reducing drug-related harm rather then drug use itself. Moreover, many of the most harmful consequences of substance abuse (HIV, hepatitis C, overdoses and other) can be eliminated without complete abstinence.  This way we can achieve a shift from viewing substance abuse from solely criminal justice perspective toward considering it from public health or social work point of view.  In short, while complete abstinence approach does provide an effective way of treatment to individuals experiencing problems from substance abuse, there should be complementary treatments available to those, who may not view total abstinence as their immediate goal.  
Just as complete abstinence and prohibition orientation results in a chain of negative consequences, Bush administration's strong commitment to punishment-based approach towards illegal drugs caused problems brings up a number of interrelated issues. While majority of general public support federal war on drug approach much reflecting that of war on alcohol resulting in Prohibition several decades ago, over the past several years many Americans tried to support the reform of drug policies despite the opposition from the federal government. In his article America's Lonely Drug War in Mother Jones, A. Smith points out that the similar drug war in Europe is mostly over. Majority of European countries moves toward legalized, regulated market of soft drugs, making drugs available to addicts through health care systems and reforming substance abuse approaches to make them more pragmatic.  Thus, while the U.S. remains to carry on its overexpensive war on drugs, Western Europe softens its approach to individual use of most soft drugs largely due to the success of Dutch model. As nation's experiment with Prohibition resulted in criminalizing alcohol, country's current approach toward drug use proves to bring results mainly opposite to the desired effect.
As the European Union countries move away from criminally-enforced probation, resent studies show that the rate of use of such hard drugs as cocaine or heroin is much higher in the United States' strongest allay UK, then it is in Holland. Around the world a new pragmatic consensus is emerging, viewing substance abuse as health issue, rather then a criminal justice problem. Such approach is more likely to bring solutions to the substance abuse related problems, such as addiction, crime and AIDS, rather than the U.S. laws resulting from its firm belief in the moral absolutism. 
In their work Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice, C.  Reinarman, and H. Levine closely examine crack use in America, its connection to crime and violence, its social effects and the effects United States drug use policies have on crack use. 
Authors also compare crack use patterns in other countries, such as Canada, Australia and the Netherlands. In part three of the book, authors closely examine the cost and consequences of American 'zero-tolerance' drug policies. For instance, several chapters focus on the effect such policies have on pregnant women and African-Americans, and also on the civil liberties. C.  Reinarman, and H. Levine describe the cost, consequences and alternatives to drug prohibition. 
All works referred to in this essay present the perspectives from the 'other side' of harm reduction. As one can easily see, U.S. government current drug policies have been largely unsuccessful in substance abuse prevention and harm reduction in both, criminal and social perspectives. Government policies are due to its 'zero-tolerance' approach and viewing this problem as mostly criminal rather then social or public health issue. While the concerns that such unsuccessful efforts raise deserve more detailed examination, it would be impossible not to conclude that reform of drug policy toward a more tolerant and pragmatic approach could result in more effective solutions to both, roots and fruits of the problem. 
Works cited:
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.