There is a clear difference between harm reduction and rehabilitation, although both are beneficial to society. However, we should not use double-speak terms like "safe use", as all efforts to facilitate continuous narcotics use are not safe, and it is counter-productive to imply otherwise. To see my point of view more clearly, consider whether it would be beneficial for any user or potential user to truly believe it is genuinely safe to use narcotics as a part of a harm reduction program.

We should be educating people about the dangers of narcotics addiction, and helping those who are already addicted through rehabilitation programs. They should have access to the narcotics for reduction therapy/tapering. But they also need a lot more — counselling, withdrawals management, relapse management, replacement therapy, group support, and other effective measures.

I suppose the core of what I am trying to say is this: harm reduction is not addressing the core issue effectively enough, and calling any part of harm "safe" communicates a wrong message and is damaging. Harm reduction efforts are important, but are not enough alone; continued narcotics use not be sold by politicians as "safe". There is a subtle but distinct difference between "safe" and "safer", the latter of which is appropriate in harm reduction efforts, but not the former.