Harm Reduction: When Does It Improve Health, and When Does it Backfire?

John Cawley and Davide Dragone

No 30926, NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc

Abstract: Some harm reduction strategies encourage individuals to switch from a harmful addictive good to a less harmful addictive good; examples include e-cigarettes (substitutes for combustible cigarettes) and methadone and buprenorphine (substitutes for opioids). These have proven to be controversial. Advocates argue that people struggling with addiction benefit because they can switch to a less harmful substance, but opponents argue that this could encourage abstainers to begin using the harm-reduction method or even, eventually, the original addictive good. This paper builds on theories of addiction to model the introduction of a harm reduction method, and demonstrates the conditions under which each side is correct.

JEL-codes: D11 I12 I18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023-02
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-hea
Note: EH
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w30926.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: Harm Reduction: When Does It Improve Health, and When Does it Backfire? (2023)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nbr:nberwo:30926

Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w30926

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().