hey yanker
again, thanks for being able to discuss these issues without the insults and inflammation.
i think this exact number issue has become a bit of a distraction. it's been explained to death why some of the statements being discussed are inaccurate. we can't seem to make you understand why the numbers from sites like pr.com don't map 100% accurately onto the real world but you can't - or choose not to - understand. that's not going to change so let's move on.
the reason this has become such a contentious issue is because it's part of a larger conversation which says "inaccuracy is ok" and "if we're not sure, let's just take a guess and assume it's ok". i'm not ok with this and anybody who claims they're interested in harm-reduction should be not ok with it either.
alasdair
again, thanks for being able to discuss these issues without the insults and inflammation.
i think this exact number issue has become a bit of a distraction. it's been explained to death why some of the statements being discussed are inaccurate. we can't seem to make you understand why the numbers from sites like pr.com don't map 100% accurately onto the real world but you can't - or choose not to - understand. that's not going to change so let's move on.
the reason this has become such a contentious issue is because it's part of a larger conversation which says "inaccuracy is ok" and "if we're not sure, let's just take a guess and assume it's ok". i'm not ok with this and anybody who claims they're interested in harm-reduction should be not ok with it either.
i agree....but insisting people test everything because of the high amount of bunk pills is clearly in the name of harm reduction.
alasdair

