4 ms·
> and some people who should not get them now won't (which is good) It checks a box. Whether or not the long term result is actually positive or "good" for th
by akira2501 7y ago
> and some people who should not get them now won't (which is good)
It checks a box. Whether or not the long term result is actually positive or "good" for that individual seems far less clear, particularly if your plans only extend as far as cutting off their supply.
> but the correct balance is deeply unclear, and unlikely to be determined in the middle of a moral panic.
I feel like drug abuse is indicative of other more serious underlying problems, and unless you address those, you're just shifting problems from one domain to another.
- Lazare 7y agoBoth valid points. I'm pretty keen on the concept of harm reduction, but how much overlap there is between harm reduction and blindly trying to reduce the consumption of opioids remains to be seen.
- shkkmo 7y ago> how much overlap there is between harm reduction and blindly trying to reduce the consumption of opioids remains to be seen. The answer is "none". "Harm reduction" has a specific meaning im the context of addiction (such as needle exchange programs, etc). Cutting people off from their access to legal opiods does not qualify as "harm reduction", but the opposite as it pushes people to unsafe street drugs.