- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
You must log in or # to comment.
Time to give your local addicts bus fare to Etobicoke. Let Doug deal with it in his own back yard.
As someone who lives near one…
- They do cut down on paraphenalia waste, though since people can’t use inhalable drugs, crack pipes are everywhere and anything that can be set on fire is often set on fire
- Yes, they attract people, but not nearly as much as the drug dealers that pitch tents and sell out of them. Portable drug dens, not SI/SC sites, are a serious problem
As with everything related to drug policy in Canada, we did the cheap half: provide precarious funding to a handful of under-resourced services and don’t give them legislative freedom to do the job correctly.
If you wanted this to work:
- Allow inhalables
- Don’t allow consumption off site. At all. Drugs get confiscated if you try to leave with them, and they’re confiscated if you’re using in, eg, a public park.
- On that note, get police to do their fucking jobs, get out of their cruisers, and maybe enforce a law or two? Like, we have an SC site, and we have shelter space, but apparently that’s hard work and it’s easier to just let addicts deal drugs and swap stolen property all day, for months.
- Housing. Holy fucking shit, we need housing. Nothing, and I mean nothing, breeds crime like drug addicts tenting.
- While we’re on tents, I could really stop with suburban NIMBY do-gooders bringing addicts food and new tents. There’s a food bank and several shelters in the area, drop the food there. If you’re so keen to let them tent, offer them space in your backyard, not in the few green spaces that downtown residents can no longer use because addicts wreck them
(side note: I’ve seen the very same people who do the donation run protest about SCS sites and pop-up/tiny-homes outside of specific areas of downtown. They’re up for doing a Timmy’s run and getting their church to buy a tent, but no addicts in the suburbs, please & thanks)
I get why Ford has the support to do this. A lot of people, especially people who live in small Ontario towns and cities, are absolutely sick of addicts ruining things for everyone. Of course, Ford won’t do the right thing, because the right thing costs money, which is why we’re here. It won’t fix the problem, but like everything Ford does, it seems like he’s taking action if you don’t look too closely.
Plus, the operating budgets for these can be given the developers; win-win for Ford.
A lot of people, especially people who live in small Ontario towns and cities, are absolutely sick of addicts ruining things for everyone.
No, addicts are sick. People who would rather see addicts die are merely selfish. Nothing has been ruined except addict’s lives.
And this attitude is precisely why people won’t support SCS.
You might think think this, and people like you might think this, but it convinces no one else, and telling them they’re selfish is a great way to get them to vote against you in even greater numbers.
Try building some bridges and explaining how SCS sites actually reduce crime, needle waste and such. Then talk about how we need housing on top of that.
Yes, people are selfish and care about their own interests. They’re people. You need to work within those constraints if you want change. If your plans for a better society involve expecting better people, you won’t get there.
Negligent homicide. Blood on Ford’s hands.
Ford doesn’t care.
To be honest, a lot of voters see this as a feature, not a bug. One less junkie to steal their stuff, shit in the park or cat-call them.
This is what advocates need to learn: saying “Ford has blood on his hands” does not work, because people don’t care about addicts’ lives. They’d be quite happy if more addicts die. I’ve heard more than one downtown business person say they’d rather not carry naloxone kits, and many, many downtown citizens who say things like “hopefully we lose a bunch during winter”.
I don’t think the advocacy community understands how much the empathy of the voting public is used up: voters can’t see a doctor, can’t afford rent, have trouble finding a well-paying job and now they’re being asked to be sympathetic to people who stole their tools from their car, or their kids’ Christmas presents off their porch, or who leave broken crack pipes in the only park they can use to walk their dog.
We’re going to need to explain to voters how SCS sites help them without talking about saving addicts’ lives. Because people want addicts to go away, and they’re getting to the point where they don’t care how that happens.
Ford bathes in the blood of ‘degenerates’ and vulnerable.
When he’s said how much he loves trump, this should come as no surprise.
I lived in a highrise near a city hall once. I watched the same group of NIMBYs protest the opening of a safe injection site. Signs saying they don’t want drugs addicts flooding the streets. I could tell by the large trucks these folks didn’t actually live in the city. The protest ended as they all walked down the street to the grand opening of a new LCBO. The ribbon was cut to their cheers and applause.
An LCBO and a consumption site is not the same. You don’t consume the liqour at the LCBO and generally aren’t under the influence when there. I may be wrong but it feels like you are trying to compare them as similar services.
The difference is a safe injection site attempts to provide harm reduction and access to addiction treatment, while an LCBO retail location simply provides harm and addiction.
Conservatives love to ban stuff.
Fuck them (the conservatives, and not literally). It hurts no one having sites such as the one mentioned.
Let me guess: there is one of these in Ford’s neighbourhood right? Probably next to the bike lane.
These God damned addicts are getting high and riding bikes!
Wow. I cannot believe that is a thing!
