For and Against Insite....again

The National Post offers a point/counterpoint on harm reduction that completely misses the point.

From the pro-Insite piece:

"The belief," he says, "is that if health providers remove or lessen the harms of addicts' behaviour, addicts won't hit bottom and therefore won't have the motivation to go clean."

Does anyone really make this argument? This seems like a straw man argument.

"The issue is not whether the addict would be better off without his addiction--of course he would--but whether we are going to abandon him to illness or death if he is unable to give it up," says Dr. Gabor Mate

That's one issue. The other issue is, how far are we willing to go to help them get off drugs.

The anti harm reduction column is no better. It advocates the elimination of harm reduction services and offering only abstinence-based services.

How about both/and?