What threshold makes something stop being harm reduction as opposed to “good policy” because it seems like the only difference is “we reduced the harm even less” and it’s good now “It’s even easier to get medicine” > “it’s easier to get medicine” but how is this not more of the thing you don’t like
If the policy is just something to kick the can and doesn’t really accomplish anything but making things marginally better, it’s bullshit. Policy that doesn’t put a bandaid on people’s problems and actual fixes them is good.
Okay so to make sure I'm clear here. Fixing it forever > not fixing it at all > fixing it somewhat appears to be what you're arguing.
Sure if you’re being purposely obtuse, I’m saying we shouldn’t be fighting for half measures. We should be fighting for what we deserve.
It's not being obtuse. I already said I want to go further. But you said "harm reduction" sends us further to the right, so by definition the ranking I gave has to be correct right? To avoid going further to the right it's better to not do anything unless it's 100% solving everything.
Yeah dude whatever you say, that’s what I was saying
Well either that is what you're saying, or you agree that it's still better than what we had before.
Just because it’s marginally better, does not mean that’s what we should settle for. I’m not going to advocate or support policies that are half assed. Regardless if I think they are kinda sorta a little bit better.
And I have repeatedly said we shouldn't stop here so it sounds like we're in agreement that what we got, while we need to go further, is better than what we're getting now, which is what started this whole conversation.