Why do people feel they have the higher ground by saying harm reduction “should meet people where they’re at but not leave them there,” when traditional treatment only meets people on their terms (abstinence-only, strict attendance) and abandons/rejects/terminates everyone else?
The reality is that everyone knows treatment and recovery are possible. But not everyone is ready, willing, or able to commit. Not everyone will follow the same path. So where do they go? We tell them to go hit their “bottom”/go figure it out/“come back when you’re ready.”
We need a true CONTINUUM OF CARE. That’s what harm reductionists advocate for- a continuum of options.

Low/no threshold harm reduction on one end, traditional options on other.

And options in between.

The ability to choose.

It’s not an “either/or” it’s “both/and.”
It’s so sad and pathetic honestly how much the idea of having harm reduction OPTIONS is threatening to so many. (Just the existence of them!) They know it means they’d need to think of clients as consumers rather than captives in a monopolized system with few alternatives.
“When you’re used to privilege, equality feels like oppression .”

Its what I think whenever I hear mainstream treatment and recovery people talk about harm reduction. They have a monopoly on a paradigm, on resources, on power, influence. Harm reduction threatens it by existing.
It only reveals their own fragile hold on the unearned privileges they have gained, the alliances they have formed, the benefits they have reaped while no one was watching and no one was challenging them.

Their unscrupulous & inhumane practices. The lack of evidence. All of it
IF CHOICE AND COMPETITION THREATENS YOUR BUSINESS MODEL, MAYBE IT’S TIME TO REEVALUATE WHAT YOU’RE SELLING.
You can follow @MyHarmReduction.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.