{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02905982905982906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006837606837606838, 'mean_word_length': 5.13986013986014, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Harm Reduction Strategy and the Drug Problem: Definitions and Applications in Denmark *

In the ongoing debate over drug policy, the strategy of harm reduction, or harm minimization, has often been surrounded by ideological argumentation. This strategy, essentially a health and social services policy, has been portrayed as camouflaged legalization by those who prefer the policy of drug control through repression, or considered unacceptable because it permits a social group engaged in an illegal way of living to be helped by public health and social services (Pates 1995, 39). On the other hand, by those who defend the policy of outright legalisation, it is deemed a half-hearted solution. Many others involved in this debate consider harm reduction (HR) a third option which promotes a comprehensive drug policy with pragmatic objectives. Harm reduction strategy is, first and foremost, a European phenomena; a corollary function of certain historic and societal factors that hold true in a number of European countries. According to an American academic (Reuter 1992, 43), in many European countries, but not Scandinavia, the problems of drug addiction are considered to be a social health problem, while in the USA, where they are associated much more with violent consequences than in Europe, they are deemed to be of criminal nature. Reuter parallels European harm reductionists with what he calls the "owls" of American drug policy, i.e. those who constitute a third party between the "doves" and ''hawks'' of this issue in America. He points out, however, that the owls' contribution to the debate has certain limitations because they accept the use of harsh enforcement, while ignoring considerations on the negative consequences of such en-