I thought of a different way to put this. It's like that meme where two people look at the same things and see different things.

You see harm reduction. You see that as a reason to vote for Dems.

They see harm reduction. They see that as a reason to not vote for Dems. Because to them they see harm reduction, is harm lite, is harm, and they will not vote for harm.

I say don't fall for their framing of calling it harm reduction.

Ok I think one point of confusion is that I see the term "harm reduction" originating from the "both sides same" people. They use it to say "it's only harm reduction, it's still harm, therefore I won't vote for it". Or "Dems only reduce harm, not help, therefore I won't vote for them". Don't fall for their trick and don't let them fall into that trap of what's basically both sides same.

1. If you let them use the term harm reduction, that lets them categorize it as harm. That's what they want to do. They want to categorize it as harm, just harm lite. Once the categorize it as harm in any way, they won't vote for it. That's why they want to categorize it as harm lite. Don't let them.

2. I think this is pretty similar as 1. They want to put everything as "harm less" instead of help. Again so they can categorize it as harm, and thus not vote for it. Again, don't let them categorize it as "harm less".

3. Point out that Dems can't do anything without all 3 houses. And they've had all 3 houses for only 6 years out of the last 44 years. 2 years under each of Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden.