In the 1980s, as the War on Drugs ramped up and the “Just Say No” mentality dominated public discourse, pioneers like Tom Franklin at the Addiction Research Foundation (ARF), now called the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, were fighting an uphill battle. They knew that criminalizing drug use and pushing abstinence as the only solution ignored the realities of substance use. Instead, they advocated for harm reduction, a practical and compassionate approach that focused on minimizing the negative consequences of substance use rather than punishing people for it.
Franklin was instrumental in shifting the conversation at ARF. As a therapist and later head of the opiate treatment program, he understood that drug use was a complex public health issue, not a moral failing. He pushed for policies that treated people with dignity, emphasizing treatment and support over punitive measures. By the 1990s, as manager of the Behaviour Change Unit, he played a key role in fostering a more client-centered approach, ensuring that people who used drugs were met with care rather than judgment.
Yet, despite these efforts, harm reduction remained a controversial stance. The dominant beliefs related to criminalized drugs at the time that were shared by politicians, law enforcement, and even many healthcare professionals was that drug use should be met with zero tolerance. The result was an increase in incarceration, stigmatization, and a complete disregard for the structural and societal factors related to substance use. This resistance to harm reduction set back progress for decades, making it harder for policies like safe consumption sites, needle exchanges, and opioid substitution therapies to gain traction.
Decades later, the fight remains eerily similar. While harm reduction is more widely recognized today, it continues to face backlash, often for the same reasons as before. Politicians looking for easy answers still push tough-on-crime rhetoric, advocating for crackdowns on drug use rather than investing in public health solutions. Safe supply programs, proven to reduce overdose deaths, are being defunded or shut down in certain regions. The criminalization of drug use continues to disproportionately impact marginalized communities, reinforcing cycles of poverty and incarceration rather than addressing the failed drug policy that drives the ongoing crisis and preventable deaths related to substance use.
The lessons from Franklin’s era are clear: harm reduction works, but political will is often lacking. The reluctance to embrace these approaches isn’t due to a lack of evidence but rather a refusal to challenge deep-seated stigmas about drug use. Just as Franklin and his colleagues fought against rigid abstinence-only models, today’s advocates continue to push back against reactionary policies that prioritize punishment over care.
If anything, Franklin’s work serves as a reminder that progress in drug policy is not linear. The same struggles that defined the 1980s—public resistance, political fearmongering, and institutional reluctance—persist today. While harm reduction strategies have undoubtedly saved lives, the battle for widespread acceptance and implementation is far from over. The fight Franklin was part of is still being waged, and as history has shown, the cost of inaction is measured in lives lost.
Tom Franklin’s legacy lives on, not only in the policies and programs he helped shape but also through those who continue his fight today. His son, Adam Franklin, supports as an integral part of the work of RECLAIM COLLECTIVE, an organization dedicated to harm reduction and drug policy reform. By sharing this article here, we recognize that the same struggles Tom faced persist, and the need for compassionate, evidence-based approaches to substance use is more urgent than ever. In Adam’s words “if my father were here today, while a lot has changed, there is still much work to be done. He