In the words of one expert:

Harm reduction, in the final analysis, is concerned with ensuring the quality and integrity of human life, in all its wonderful, awful complexity. Harm reduction does not portray issues as polarities, but sees them as they really are, somewhere in between; it is an approach that takes into account the continuum of drug use and the diversity of drugs as well as of human needs. As such, there are no clear cut answers or quick solutions. Harm reduction, then, is based on pragmatism, tolerance and diversity: in short, it is both a product and a measure of our humanity. Harm reduction is as much about human rights as it is about the right to be human (Riley 1998: 51).

One of the earliest forms of harm reduction was methadone maintenance, which was pioneered in the U.S in the 1960s. Methadone was seen as a harm reduction method for society specifically in terms of the reduction of crime and the eventual reentry of drug users into the workforce (Riley 1993:5). There have been many studies that have reported the positive effects of methadone maintenance with respect to decreasing the cost of gainful crime and facilitating social rehabilitation (Riley 1993). It is widely agreed that methadone programs reduce crime as long as the client remains involved in the treatment program. The savings reported are the result of less economic loss due to theft, but also in terms of legal and prison costs (Riley 1993:23).

In 1990 and 1991, Merseyside police were the only force in the U.K to register a decrease in crime rates (Riley 1993:26). The reason is that in the Mersey Region, services follow a philosophy that you can still care for drug users even if you cannot “cure” them. Caring for drug users can mean providing injectable opiates and other drugs to registered users (Riley 1993). The local police are pivotal in ensuring the success of this type of program. In the Mersey Region, local police do not scrutinize drug services and they often refer drug users who have been arrested to harm reduction services (Riley 1993:53). Dispensed through local pharmacists, clients receive oral methadone, injectable methadone, injectable heroin, amphetamines, cocaine or other drugs. In some parts of the U.K., drug users can also be prescribed smokeable drugs in the form of “reefers.” Merseyside police have been leaders in developing a cooperative harm reduction strategy with the Regional Harm Authority to improve the prevention and treatment of drug problems (Riley 1993:9). The overall effects of some of the policies they have in place are to help direct drug users away from crime and possible imprisonment. With the numerous prevention programs, treatment and policing policies that have been put in place in Merseyside, official statistics have indicated a decrease in drug related acquisitive crime in many parts of the region. It is thought that the low prevalence of crime can only be related to the various policies dealing with drug use in the area (Riley 1993:11).

A Swiss project that gave heroin to 1,100 addicts found that the percentage of income the addicts derived from illegal activity rapidly fell from 69% to 10%. England had a similar experience from the 1920s and the late 1960s when doctors were permitted to prescribe heroin or cocaine to addicts; throughout this period, researchers consistently found that the rate of property crimes committed by English addicts was a small fraction of that committed by American addicts who were forced to get their drugs on the streets. When England abandoned this system, property crime committed by addicts rose to American levels (Gardner 2000).

Switzerland was the first country to prescribe heroin in the modern era. From 1994 to the end of 1996, a number of heroin users were treated in this fashion. The results included a decreased use of cocaine and heroin, a decrease in crime and an improvement in users physical and mental health (Brissette 2001:1). A recent study estimated that the social costs for one untreated opiate-dependent user amounts to $49,000US per year (Brissette 2001:2). The Swiss program, which started in 1994, began with 700 dependent drug users in eight different cities. It was later expanded to 1,146 patients in seven cities at 18 different treatment centers for a daily fee of $13US (Riley 1998:53). The program provided participants "with medical access to injectable, oral and in some cases smokable heroin, morphine, methadone and, under some conditions, cocaine. ...Two programs allowed clients to take a few heroin reefers home each night" (Riley 1998). The program offered lodging, employment assistance, treatment for health and psychological problems, clean syringes and counseling to addicts. They set no strict limits on dosages, but provided guidelines for what constitutes typical doses for other health officials in neighboring cities to provide cocaine to dependant users (Riley 1998). The results of the study included: