Ontario is copying the U.S. with a new law that would punish landlords for drug use in their venues. But in America, the war on drugs made concerts and raves riskier.
I do argue for safe supply. But again the goal of such programs, and it is sometimes stated as such, should be to stop using drugs at some point.
Such programs are framed as a step to rehab.
Safe supply should not mean that people should use/be free to use drugs indefinatly.
Safe supply is different from Bill 10. I can be in favour of safe supply and be in favour of fines for venues that allow drug use on premises.
Same thing with any illness. Stop the spread (prevent public use in social gatherings), quarantine (safe supply in supervised locations), cure (rehab), and finally future prevention (suppress supply and social need for it).
No one is saying someone should use drugs indefinitely that is not the intended goal of safe supply. Serious addictions take time and support to wean off. It’s about saving lives and keeping families together.
Why should venues (and communities) have to allow and accomodate drug users, when it should be the reverse? Drug users should understand there are things they cannot do while they use or are recovering from drug use.
Once they are weaned off, I’m more than happy if they come back.
Again same with any illness.
Safe supply is a step to the cure but a step to a cure available does not allow spreading illness.
How does safe supply relate to Bill 10? Why are you defending drug use in public areas and social gatherings?
wow. this is actually what people think “compassionate care” looks like. “Why should communities have to allow drug users have safe consumption.” BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS DEAD PEOPLE WE LOVE.
You have strong opinions. But do you have a strong motivation to educate yourself? You think that “common sense” is enough to give you something helpful to say. But we all have the same stupid brain and everyone also started from your same stupid ideas.
Again, safe consumption and safe supply is different from allowing drug use in venues.
Going to events are optional, not an inherent right. This bill is about events and venues, not about safe supply. Unless you agree to these statements, there is no use to further discussion.
If you are sick with any disease you should stay home and recover. Why should communities accommodate the spread of disease when if you are sick you can stay home.
I do have strong views.
The annoying thing is you do too but don’t recognise it.
People can live without a nightlife. Maybe you can tell your loved ones that.
Why should I be in favour of allowing drug users to participate in night life but disallow sick people to?
I think your point here is that searching one’s person is a violation one’s rights, wich I agree.
You would then have to search every person because doing “random searches” would be profiling (of one kind or another).
I did not consider this angle as I have been searched myself before entering venues. So I would like for those searches to continue.
This incurs extra costs on the venue and reduces the initial experience of the event attendee.
Which I again agree with.
The solution of searching everyone to a stated reasonable search plus security in the event could be used to absolve the venue, as the same standard of care argument is used elsewhere.
The problem lies fundamentally at classifying drug use as wrong and assigning a burden and responsibility to remove it.
It goes to show that drug use has an individual benefit but a social cost.
Stating the social cost is not in and of itself an argument against needing social action to stop spreading drug use.
My point is that venues already take these measures. At best, this is grandstanding as being “tough on crime” and at worst this is a tool for gentrification, including removal of supportive housing.
How do you know someone is a drug user?
If they have drugs on their person, or if they use them?
But what is the alternate solution? There has to be a solution to this.
The goal should be to get drug users to stop using drugs. The goal should not be to create a safe space for indefinite use.
Why don’t you take your energy to advocate for more access to safe supply.
I do argue for safe supply. But again the goal of such programs, and it is sometimes stated as such, should be to stop using drugs at some point.
Such programs are framed as a step to rehab.
Safe supply should not mean that people should use/be free to use drugs indefinatly.
Safe supply is different from Bill 10. I can be in favour of safe supply and be in favour of fines for venues that allow drug use on premises.
Same thing with any illness. Stop the spread (prevent public use in social gatherings), quarantine (safe supply in supervised locations), cure (rehab), and finally future prevention (suppress supply and social need for it).
No one is saying someone should use drugs indefinitely that is not the intended goal of safe supply. Serious addictions take time and support to wean off. It’s about saving lives and keeping families together.
I agreed with your statements.
But again, safe supply is different from Bill 10.
Why should venues (and communities) have to allow and accomodate drug users, when it should be the reverse? Drug users should understand there are things they cannot do while they use or are recovering from drug use.
Once they are weaned off, I’m more than happy if they come back.
Again same with any illness.
Safe supply is a step to the cure but a step to a cure available does not allow spreading illness.
How does safe supply relate to Bill 10? Why are you defending drug use in public areas and social gatherings?
wow. this is actually what people think “compassionate care” looks like. “Why should communities have to allow drug users have safe consumption.” BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS DEAD PEOPLE WE LOVE.
You have strong opinions. But do you have a strong motivation to educate yourself? You think that “common sense” is enough to give you something helpful to say. But we all have the same stupid brain and everyone also started from your same stupid ideas.
Again, safe consumption and safe supply is different from allowing drug use in venues.
Going to events are optional, not an inherent right. This bill is about events and venues, not about safe supply. Unless you agree to these statements, there is no use to further discussion.
If you are sick with any disease you should stay home and recover. Why should communities accommodate the spread of disease when if you are sick you can stay home.
I do have strong views.
The annoying thing is you do too but don’t recognise it.
People can live without a nightlife. Maybe you can tell your loved ones that.
Why should I be in favour of allowing drug users to participate in night life but disallow sick people to?
How do you know if someone has used drugs or has them on their person when they enter a venue?
You search the person.
I think your point here is that searching one’s person is a violation one’s rights, wich I agree.
You would then have to search every person because doing “random searches” would be profiling (of one kind or another).
I did not consider this angle as I have been searched myself before entering venues. So I would like for those searches to continue.
This incurs extra costs on the venue and reduces the initial experience of the event attendee.
Which I again agree with.
The solution of searching everyone to a stated reasonable search plus security in the event could be used to absolve the venue, as the same standard of care argument is used elsewhere.
The problem lies fundamentally at classifying drug use as wrong and assigning a burden and responsibility to remove it.
It goes to show that drug use has an individual benefit but a social cost.
Stating the social cost is not in and of itself an argument against needing social action to stop spreading drug use.
My point is that venues already take these measures. At best, this is grandstanding as being “tough on crime” and at worst this is a tool for gentrification, including removal of supportive housing.