harm reduction is an evidence-based public health strategy THAT SAVES LIVES AND MAKE COMMUNITIES SAFER.

Harm reduction is not an abstract theory; there are decades of history supporting the practice.

To be clear, LA has never had anything but the most basic of harm reduction services. These minimal services such as access to naloxone, sterile supplies, and low-barrier support are proven to reduce fatal drug overdoses, curb the spread of infectious diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C and increase access to treatment (5, 6, 9). Skid Row is currently experiencing a cluster of new HIV cases and this decision to end these services increases risk to HIV and overdose death.

Research consistently shows that individuals engaged with harm reduction programs are significantly more likely to employ safer ways of using substances, access substance use treatment, healthcare services, and permanent housing than those isolated from care (3, 7, 8, 11). 

If allowed to expand harm reduction services, programs like overdose prevention centers not only include the above benefits, but are proven to dramatically reduce overdose death, public drug use, and publicly discarded syringes, pipes, and other paraphernalia (2, 4, 10). By mitigating acute medical crises on the street, harm reduction relieves immense pressure from emergency medical services, local emergency rooms, and public space sanitation, thus drastically reducing the cost to county taxpayers (1, 6). No matter your political leaning, harm reduction addresses the issues we all care about.

harm reduction research

There have been hundreds of peer-reviewed studies outlining the benefits of harm reduction published in the world’s top medical journals, including the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, and more. These are just a few examples:

  1. Bowring AL, Tidhar T, Olsen A, Bailie C, Burke K, Martin-Hughes R, et al. A cost–benefit analysis of the implementation and scale-up of harm reduction interventions in the Australian Capital Territory. Addiction. 2026; 121(5): 1272–1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70276

  2. Gariepy, G., Prowse, R. K. M., Plouffe, R., Graham, E. Supervised consumption sites and population-level overdose mortality: a systematic review of recent evidence, 2016-2024. (2025). Health Promotion Chronic Disease Prevention, 45(9), 357-366. https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.45.9.02

  3. Hagan, H., McGough, J. P., Thiede, H., Hopkins, S., Duchin, J., & Alexander, E. R. (2000). Reduced injection frequency and increased entry and retention in drug treatment associated with needle-exchange participation in Seattle drug injectors. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19(3), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0740-5472(00)00104-5

  4. Kennedy, M. C., Karamouzian, M., Kerr, T. (2017). Public Health and Public Order Outcomes Associated with Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities: a Systematic Review. The Science of Prevention, 14, 161-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-017-0363-y

  5. Kral, A. H., Bluthenthal, R. N., Lorvick, J., Gee, L., Bacchetti, P., & Edlin, B. R. (2001). Sexual transmission of HIV-1 among injection drug users in San Francisco, USA: risk-factor analysis. The Lancet, 357(9266), 1397–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04562-1

  6. Macias-Konstantopoulos, W., Heins, A., Sachs, C. J., Whiteman, P. J., Wingkun, N.-J. G., & Riviello, R. J. (2021). Between Emergency Department Visits: The Role of Harm Reduction Programs in Mitigating the Harms Associated With Injection Drug Use. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 77(5), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2020.11.008

  7. MacKinnon, L., & Socias, M. E. (2021). Housing First: A housing model rooted in harm reduction with potential to transform health care access for highly marginalized Canadians. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 67(7), 481–483. https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.6707481

  8. Nassau T, Al-Tayyib A, Robinson WT, Shinefeld J, Brady KA. The Impact of Syringe Services Program Policy on Risk Behaviors Among Persons Who Inject Drugs in 3 US Cities, 2005-2015. Public Health Reports®. 2020;135(1_suppl):138S-148S. doi:10.1177/0033354920930137

  9. Stancliff, S., Agins, B., Rich, J.D. et al. Syringe access for the prevention of blood borne infections among injection drug users. BMC Public Health 3, 37 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-3-37

  10. Wood, E., Kerr, T., Small, W., Li, K., March, D. C., Montaner, J. S. G., Tyndall, M. W. (2004). Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 171(7), 731-734. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1040774

  11. Wood, E., Tyndall, M. W., Zhang, R., Stoltz, J.-A., Lai, C., Montaner, J. S. G., & Kerr, T. (2006). Attendance at Supervised Injecting Facilities and Use of Detoxification Services. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(23), 2512–2514. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmc0529392.