[lemmsjid]

I was intrigued and took a Quick Look at the top studies on this subject and the metrics used are things like relative overdose deaths in an area, crime statistics, and usage of treatment programs. They say that by virtue of a number of epidemiological metrics that safe consumption sites appear to be associated with harm reduction in terms of overdoses, while not increasing crime stats. I don’t see outsized claims of objective truth being made, more of the standard, “here’s how we got the numbers, here’s the numbers, they appear to point in this direction.”

I’m not doubting your claim but I’m wondering how that very weird paper you’re citing bubbles up to the top, when there’s some very middle of the road meta analyses that don’t make outsized claims like access to objective truth.

[adamrezich]

It's not that the paper itself made the claim of having access to objective Truth, it's that papers like these make conclusions, and these conclusions get taken in aggregate to advance various agendas, and the whole premise is treated (in aggregate) as being functionally identical to building a rocket based on conclusions reached by mathematics and physics research papers—because both situations involve making decisions based upon “scientific research”, so in both situations you can justify your actions by pointing to “Science”.

[worik]

> and these conclusions get taken in aggregate to advance various agendas

What do you use to advance your agendas?

I see that you "knew a guy" and apply "common-sense thinking" (that goes against mountains of lived experience, never mind research studies)

I think I have to accuse you of bigotry. Look it up.