• nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    So tell me, if the choice is between having the safe consumption site close to your kids’ school and having people doing their drugs in the open near your kids’ school and leaving their used needles lying on the playground, which are you going to pick? Often, these places are where they are because that’s where their clients already are.

    You may also want to measure out the radius of 200m from every school or daycare in your town or city on a map and see how many places are left where they can park SCSs. I admit I haven’t actually done this, but my bet is that the options will be considerably reduced.

    It’s just about inevitable that some SCSs are going to end up in someone’s backyard. Figuring out where they’ll do more good than harm is more important than enforcing arbitrary limits. This is typical right-wing “think of the children” rhetoric. Don’t fall for it.

    • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      if the choice is between having the safe consumption site close to your kids’ school and having people doing their drugs in the open near your kids’ school and leaving their used needles lying on the playground, which are you going to pick?

      SCS

      Often, these places are where they are because that’s where their clients already are.

      Are they? Or is it just close enough the areas where underfunded volunteer organisations are able to get a physical site.

      You may also want to measure out the radius of 200m from every school or daycare in your town or city on a map and see how many places are left where they can park SCSs.

      This is neighborhood dependant. Somewhere like Sud-ouest in Montréal? Impossible. Somewhere like a Kingston suburb, a lot of real estate.

      But that’s a great point, allow me to rephrase, the SCS sites should be an appropriate safe distance from schools; what that distance is is going to vary greatly between neighborhoods and their densities; and even the day trip programming of these schools (as an example if daycare always does their walks north to a canal which has playgrounds, then a SCS any distance along that route isn’t great, but a site to the south could be super close.

      Figuring out where they’ll do more good than harm is more important than enforcing arbitrary limits.

      Agreed, but this needs to be looked at holistically, not solely for the clients. That requires understanding the communities these sites are going into, and funding sites appropriately so selection isn’t based on funding.

      • Gnumile@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Have their been reports or stories of these drug users harming children or doing drugs in the school yard rather than the safe consumption sites? Honest question, I don’t know the answer.

        • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          In Kingston, I’ve heard to janitorial staff needing to clear needles and remove tresspassers off the grounds at the boys & girls club, and a school that are the closest to the SCSs. I don’t know how the volume of cleaning compares to schools farther away from the SCS. My data is also hearsy, but comes from someone who works with the community.

          I’ll also say Kingston concentrates support services geographically, which leads to concentrations of people using these services geographically. This is something I didn’t see in other cities where services are more spread out around.

      • jerkface@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        volunteer organisations

        what are you referring to as a “volunteer” organisation?

    • yes_this_time@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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.