Thanks.
No, it's okay, Don. Somebody who was presenting to us had used the term “recreational use”. That's why I used it. I agree with you.
What I hear you saying is that there really is no difference. It is a continuum of use either going back and forth, or whatever, and whatever we do to help is going to have to accept that we can't categorize people into two groups of users. I think that was what I wanted to get out of you, and you did get there. Thank you so much.
On harm reduction, I think that Dr. Selby spoke about harm reduction. I was glad you brought it up. I was a little concerned that you linked it to treatment as Donald MacPherson said, but I wanted to talk a little bit about the whole issue of harm reduction. I noticed that in the “First Do No Harm” document, which uses the word “harm”, treatment is one of the modules, but there is no harm reduction pillar in there. There is just treatment, and harm reduction was missed out. How could you do no harm if you don't reduce harm? I think harm reduction is a key part. Everyone plays politics with this term, and I think it's an important term.
I just wondered what you thought of it being missing from the “First Do No Harm” document. Would you like to expand a little bit on harm reduction?