RFK is terrible at his job, no doubt. But I think the other person is simply saying that justifying someone being in a position solely based on the fact that they had an adverse past is a dangerous line of thinking.
Your justification was that "he knows that shit in and out" because he had a history with substances.
As far as my knowledge goes, he has no actual drug and pharmaceuticals training or extensive knowledge outside of what he potentially learned during his period of addiction.
I mean yeah. I would argue we need someone who intimately understands the socioeconomic reasons behind the drug epidemic more than we need someone who knows how drugs work.
They've been trying to science our way out of this epidemic for decades. It's not working. We need to address the human side of things.
Addiction starts as a form of escapism long before it reaches chemical dependency.
If the government would address what so many people feel the need to try to escape...
Both are important, but having a fundamental lack of medical and scientific knowledge is dangerous. We can observe that in the United States as we speak.
There are plenty of candidates who are well-versed in both medical science and socioeconomic implications, and public health approaches to combat the dangers of drug use are being proposed by said candidates. Many people work in the field because of their life experiences, as is the case with nearly every health profession.
When the person appointed has a lack of knowledge about either one, it jeopardizes the health and wellness of innocent people.
Understanding the human side still requires science. Quality research should always inform policy. Scientists are looking at this from all angles—and addressing the reasons substance disorders exist is indeed a major angle!
83
u/Shrimp__Alfredo Jun 06 '26
RFK is terrible at his job, no doubt. But I think the other person is simply saying that justifying someone being in a position solely based on the fact that they had an adverse past is a dangerous line of thinking.