Responses to this will be interesting to watch. I'm certain that people who object will be accused of moral panic or something like it.
I'm open to non-judgmental outreach harm reduction for the purpose of building relationships and gradually engaging people into recovery.
I'd like to know how these materials are being used. Are they in the hands of hopeful recovery-informed outreach workers who are building relationships and building motivation to recover? Or, something else?
I've been thinking about a model of recovery-oriented harm reductionthat would address the historic failings of abstinence-oriented and harm reduction services. The idea is that it would provide recovery (for addicts only) as an organizing and unifying construct for treatment and harm reduction services. Admittedly, these judgments of the historic failings are my own and represent the perspective of a Midwestern U.S. recovery-oriented provider:
an emphasis on client choice--no coercion
all drug use is not addiction
addiction is an illness characterized by loss of control
for those with addiction, full recovery is the ideal outcome
the concept of recovery is inclusive -- can include partial, serial, etc.
recovery is possible for any addict
all services should communicate hope for recovery--recognizing that hope-based interventions are essential for enhancing motivation to recover
incremental and radical change should be supported and affirmed
while incremental changes are validated and supported, they are not to be treated as an end-point
such a system would aggressively deal with countertransference--some people may impose their own recovery path on clients, others might enjoy vicarious nonconformity through clients