• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

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

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 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.

      • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 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.

          • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 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”.