4 ms·
There is a clear difference between harm reduction and rehabilitation, although both are beneficial to society. However, we should not use double-speak terms li
by clnq 4y ago
There is a clear difference between harm reduction and rehabilitation, although both are beneficial to society. However, we should not use double-speak terms like "safe use", as all efforts to facilitate continuous narcotics use are not safe, and it is counter-productive to imply otherwise. To see my point of view more clearly, consider whether it would be beneficial for any user or potential user to truly believe it is genuinely safe to use narcotics as a part of a harm reduction program.
We should be educating people about the dangers of narcotics addiction, and helping those who are already addicted through rehabilitation programs. They should have access to the narcotics for reduction therapy/tapering. But they also need a lot more — counselling, withdrawals management, relapse management, replacement therapy, group support, and other effective measures.
I suppose the core of what I am trying to say is this: harm reduction is not addressing the core issue effectively enough, and calling any part of harm "safe" communicates a wrong message and is damaging. Harm reduction efforts are important, but are not enough alone; continued narcotics use not be sold by politicians as "safe". There is a subtle but distinct difference between "safe" and "safer", the latter of which is appropriate in harm reduction efforts, but not the former.
- junofan 4y agoThe core issue is a series of failed policies originally implemented to address the problem of white women hanging around black and Chinese men. I don’t think the world would end if we sold Vyvanse and Nucynta ER over the counter at CVS. Let the people predisposed to be addicts just be addicts instead of wrecking their lives and the lives of those around them with failed program after failed program.
- htfu 4y agoCoffee in regular amounts, nicotine not by burning, a beer or two now and then... shouldn't be controversial. Less obvious but still true: opiates at maintanance levels under supervision, regular amphetamine in moderate dosages, MDMA or ketamine on occasion. Loads of drugs in loads of usage scenarios really are "safe". But just because supervised heroin won't kill you doesn't mean it's somehow good, actually. That's a separate judgement. There's surely no upside. It's overwhelmingly likely to make you less healthy and less happy. But so will too much bacon and sitting. Chairs are still safe though, by any sane definition.
- clnq 4y agoAlcohol consumption is proven unsafe to health[1], but it's not controversial. Adults have the right to choose risky behaviors, just like they do in fire fighting, coal mining, underwater welding, or mountain climbing. In some cases, we admire those who choose them for their bravery. Let's not confuse "unsafe" with "controversial" or "unquestionably bad." But let's remember that "safe" has a clear definition, which does not describe current "safe use" narcotics harm reduction programs. Harm reduction by definition means that harm is involved. Someone safe from street narcotics is someone who is not using them, at least in the way that they are generally used recreationally. [1] https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...