f use. Once the market is large and well-established, supplyriented interventions can be a terribly inefficient way to suppress se. Yet, even then enforcement agencies remain the only viable way o address many associated harms. Some years ago when the apartent of an elderly gentleman living downstairs was strafed in a rive-by shooting, he called the police. He didn’t demand that a reatment centre be set up next door. He didn’t ask the schools hether they were implementing a model prevention curriculum. e called the police, and as the Boston Gun Project, High-Point, nd other initiatives have demonstrated, good policing can temer the behaviour of even the most noxious gangs (Kleiman, 2009). he police can say, in effect, “Tone it down or take your fight elsehere.” For those living cheek by jowl with drug distributors, law nforcement is not a futile anachronism, but a welcome bulwark gainst brutal violence. So before asking leaders and rank and file of supply-oriented gencies to change their practices and self-image, we might first hank them sincerely for keeping away all the drug markets that ave not matured. And it might be worth reassuring them that we now they’re still the ones we’ll call in a scrape. We appreciate hem and their efforts, and it is precisely because we know they are and have so much to offer, that we grant them permission to no longer chase the Quixotic dream of a drug-free nation, allowing them instead to focus on fulfilling their oath, “To protect and serve.” I have pitched this vision to law enforcement at multiple levels in multiple countries, and it is very well received. I believe law enforcement will embrace Greenfield and Paoli’s message if it is presented positively and delivered on their terms. It would be a tragedy if ideas with so much potential were squandered because of unwillingness to present the harm reduction message in a way that is “culturally appropriate” to the people whose behaviour it seeks to change.