65
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago

The whole point is to move them somewhere safe to consume, for both the users and the public. Drugs can be pretty bad and make people do some bad things, from crimes to indecency. We dont need people fighting each other near schools, we dont need people relieving themselves in bushes near schools.

[-] Girru00@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Did they not initially choose the sites near where there were the most problems. Like they said, if there are users doing it around the school, would you want to build a site there and have it contained, or build a site 2km away that doesnt reduce users near the school as much?

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago

The difference between 200m and 2km is 10x. 200m feels very close, closer than many places will even place their bus stops to each other. Something along the lines of 500m-1km away from schools seems more reasonable IMO.

Drug users loiter and use drugs where they can get away with it. With proper resources provided elsewhere many will go there instead of shooting up in the school yard, the ones that linger and become problematic can be relocated to treatment sites by law enforcement and site staff.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

You're contradicting yourself and you are clearly not speaking from an informed point of view.

[-] saigot@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think you might be underestimating how large a distance 200m exclusion covers. It effectively makes it impossible to build these sites anywhere in the suburbs. One of these sites in an industrial complex is kinda useless. Consider that a school's grounds can be quite large, maybe 200m^2, which means that the exclusion zone is actually more like 600m^2 around the center of the school (anyone who has played a grid based ttrpg with different sized creatures is familiar with this idea). In Ontario we can have up to 8 schools per community (french&English, primary&secondary, catholic&public) and remember this applies to more places than just schools. The type of place that makes a good school and a good safe injection site are also quite similar (cheap land, high population density, access to public transit and major roads etc)

Also keep in mind that the process to get these drug sites is already very involved, you can't just plop them down. Existing rules requires a lengthy public appeal process, a process that takes into account proximity to schools. But unlike ham fisted rules like these it can take into account the specific realities of that site through a democratic process. For instance, if you have to cross a highway and a fenced private property to reach the school then they aren't going to interact much even if they fit within some arbitrary circle.

I live next to a safe drug site (that will have to close over this, its 195m away) . I can say very definitively that this community is far safer with this site then without. It greatly reduces the number of high people on the streets and the number of needles on the ground. Most importantly far less ambulances.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

The whole point is to move them somewhere safe to consume

That's just not correct. The point of SCSs is not to make life easier for people who are disgusted and inconvenienced by other people's addiction and drug use. It is to prevent death. Period. Everything else, like this 200m rule, is a compromise against that goal. It literally costs lives to move these sites away from where they are needed just because other people want to try to encourage the drug users already in their area to move elsewhere. That is so clearly not the point.

[-] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And to prevent incorrect disposal of paraphernalia. And to offer help to drug addicts so they eventually quit their addiction and quit having to shoot up near schools.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No. Those are things that it would be nice to do, but they are not critical, they are not the point, they are incidental. It is not worth sacrificing human lives so that people don't have to see needles, clearly if there is a choice that has to be made, the point of this is to save the life. It is not worth sacrificing human lives to shuffle people around and make them shoot up where you're okay with them shooting up. You are not that important. This is a public health measure, to prevent people from fucking dying. I don't know why you want to resist seeing it in those terms.

[-] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Oh no absolutely I agree with you, they are human beings and deserve love and help, I'm just coming down to the other user's level of not caring for others and only caring about "what's in it for me".

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Didn't notice that the speaker had changed, sorry

[-] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Hah no worries, gets hectic in Lemmy comments πŸ˜‚

this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
65 points (98.5% liked)

Canada

7230 readers
338 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS