Sure, it's common knowledge (at least among those not politically motivated to the contrary) that supervised consumption sites save lives.
And it's true that it's a matter of government choice whether those sites get funded.
But that doesn't mean we can abide anybody pointing out that life-and-death choices - and a leader's history in making them - represent a valid consideration in evaluating that leader's fitness. Because connecting the dots would be uncivilized.
No comments:
Post a Comment