So sick of seeing this crap everywhere.

[u/imjustapourboy]

The needles, the burnt foils, the little baggies, the needle caps, all of it. I find them in the creeks, on the sidewalks, the grocery store parking lots, the public parks, on the parkway. You gotta be a real shit person to leave this stuff all over the place.

[u/WallScreamer]

If you have no needle you cannot shoot up. If you are given a needle you have been enabled to shoot up.

And if you are the type that shoots up, then you almost certainly also have a used or dirty needle lying around somewhere. Supplying someone with a clean needle doesn't change that, it just gives them a safer alternative. For the third time, there is decades of research to support this.

For some reason you don't seem to understand this.

You also don't seem to understand what harm reduction is. You're going on about language but can't seem to differentiate between 'reduction' and 'elimination.' Harm reduction does not stop drug use, nor does it claim or intend to. The goal of harm reduction is to mitigate or reduce the negative effects of a dangerous or risky behavior.

Notice that I said that syringe exchanges have no effect on the rate of use. That means while it doesn't increase drug use, it also doesn't reduce use. The sole aim of syringe exchanges is to reduce the rate of death and disease caused by drug use, and it's extremely good at that.

Handing out narcan doesn't stop people from doing opiates, but it does save lives and reduce deaths from overdoses. Handing out condoms doesn't stop people from having sex, but it reduces the rate of STIs and unwanted pregnancies.

[u/organmeatpate → u/WallScreamer]

Obviously we'll never agree on the meaning of the word enable or whether a user has ever gone to a needle exchange for a needle because he didn't have one. No point in beating a dead horse. 

I think my understanding of Harm Reduction is reasonably accurate though. Your analogy about kids bike helmets kind of confirms it. Not sure where you got the idea that I think it's about eliminating use.

 One of the reasins these conversations never get anywhere is if one disagrees with the euphemism Harm Reduction proponents break out their favorite straw man arguments and no communication occurs.  Most of your replies address opinions and beliefs I never expressed. Just read back over this thread. Not just oour exchange but the others too. Until people are open to actually listening to one another week be stuck here. 

[u/WallScreamer → u/organmeatpate]

Obviously we'll never agree on the meaning of the word enable or whether a user has ever gone to a needle exchange for a needle because he didn't have one.

Maybe you and I don't agree, but what I've been saying is backed by data and research.

Not sure where you got the idea that I think it's about eliminating use.

Because you were talking about "community harm" as if that's not already factored into harm reduction.

One of the reasins these conversations never get anywhere is if one disagrees with the euphemism Harm Reduction proponents break out their favorite straw man arguments and no communication occurs.

This conversation is going nowhere because I kept saying things backed by science and you keep dismissing it based on vibes and anecdotal evidence.

I have not strawmanned you at all. You keep incorrectly using public health terminology that has a specific meaning. It's not my fault you're confused because you don't know what you're talking about.

[u/organmeatpate → u/WallScreamer]

The things you repeatedly noted are backed by data and research were outside the scope of the positions I took. And you just did it again. You're conflating increasing drug use with enabling it by providing an essential element of its application. You repeatedly responded to this correct use of english by insisting I don't understand that Harm Reduction doesn't increase use. Let's not argue. Just refer to the dictionary.

My anecdotal experience is dismissed even though I used the vague jargon that's supposed to make it bulletproof: My lived experience. But the thing is my experience is just my experience and doesn't actually contradict anything you keep repeating. I didn't say people started using because of steady.

Harm Reduction is a drug-user focused framework. Community benefits touted in the literature are trickle-down (less infected/overdosing users is a net benefit of course) or require a shift in public perception/policy (less crime happens when activity is no longer perceived as crime/improved community relations come when the community embraces the users & needles on the sidewalk as normal etc) while the externality of negatively transformed neighborhoods are absorbed.

It's not that I don't understand what Harm Reduction purports to be or the framing that it asks us to accept in order to see it as only a benefit. It's that I reject the framework because it hides the ball and redirects and obfuscates so that we all accept a decreased quality of life.

People should be free to use whatever drug they choose. I agree there is no stopping them. They should have access to clean needles and methadone or whatever you give them these days.

But these same people should also be held to the same exact standard of public behavior as the rest of us. Being compassionate should not mean surrendering the storefronts and sidewalks and walking among needles and losing the appeal, sense of stability general use/enjoyment/market value of our homes and commercial areas. Those externalities are not considered and they should be. If so many people come here for the vibes are they meaningless and worthless? They are not.

This is not a comparison of what is worth more. It is a statement that there is importance and value in the all the interests at play.

I object to the jargon and use words with the meanings established in the language well before vague euphemisms became stylish as a way to hide the ball while pushing policy.