65
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] yes_this_time@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago

What about a third choice of confiscating their very dangerous drugs?

Or a fourth choice of putting them in a drunk/drug tank for 24 hour hold with optional invite to a treatment center? I get it's certainly not ideal to use force on people.

Why is thinking of the children not valid? Certainly they have some right to be able to walk around their neighborhood without fear.

[-] CalPal@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago

Confiscating their drugs, forcible confinement... you serious? They'll just get more when they get the chance; they're addicts, and there are markets for them to find drugs, there's no easy way of stopping addicts from getting what they need. Confiscating or 24 hour confinement just ends the immediate risk of use, there's no saying that won't stop them from getting another hit by the next day (or even guarantee that they haven't already used it by the time they're confiscated / confined).

You're advocating for punishing people effectively for being poor and addicted to drugs. That's kind of a fucked up opinion, and opening SCSs does not mean you aren't thinking of the children - it's also keeping addicts off the streets and away from exposing that lifestyle to children, but on a more humane and practical level.

[-] yes_this_time@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Yes, confiscation of illegal and dangerous substances and drunk tank for public intoxication. Why is this outlandish?

If I go through an airport I'm frisked and water can be confiscated. Open liquor at a beach can be confiscated.

If I get drunk to the point I'm out of control I can be placed a drunk tank.

Crystal Meth, fentenyl etc... are very dangerous drugs. And people on these drugs are very antisocial.

You may just be saying that those policies won't help an addict. Addicts have different profiles and so would behave differently. Having consequences on actions would be helpful for some.

Conversely, a complete laissez faire attitude is propelling addiction for some. We are implicitly condoning their behavior.

It's OK for there to be consequences to an addicts behavior, while also providing more support.

Their behavior disproportionately impacts the poor. Consider addicts tend to poorer neighborhoods, but only a very small portion of the neighbourhood are addicts. And it's the poorer families who can't use their parks, or have their kids run to the corner store or maybe even play outside. Their public amenities are trashed, and local funding doesn't go as far. The normalization and access to drugs is certainly not helpful either.

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

Canada

7202 readers
319 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Universities


๐Ÿ’ต Finance / Shopping


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social and Culture


Rules

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

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS