,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Read this piece. It shows some very ugly things about how Scheer thinks and communicates.
2. The worldwide evidence is very clear. Harm reduction saves lives. Treatment and education are not substitutes, but compliments. For example people who want to quit often have to try several times.
3. Because the illegal drug supply is compromised to the point where there is no safe path for people who are trying to quit and struggling.
4. Despite this Scheer very carefully suggests that Harm Reduction as somehow taking focus off treatment and education.
5. What can he possibly be up to? I can't say for certain, but it sounds to me that he is trying to have it both ways.
6. He wants to signal that he doesn't like Harm Reduction as a policy choice and would rather do other things, but he does it in such a way that he can't quite be held accountable for opposing a critical tool in fighting the worst public health problem in decades.
7. In a life and death crisis you can't have it both ways. You either fully commit to employing the tools that the evidence tells you works, or you are contributing to the crisis.
8. For whatever reason (personal views that prevent him from committing to an evidence-based approach; playing to his political base; or something else) what Scheer is doing here is profoundly immoral. -end
