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 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.
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.