How is such a ruling possible?
Because pushing addicts to the fringes gets them killed, like the article says, but it also unnecessarily puts them in police crosshairs. They don’t deserve to go to jail because they can’t afford a home to do their drugs in like the white-collar addicts and they don’t deserve to die because no one cares that they OD’d.
If you want to see addicts off the streets and out of the playgrounds then support consumption sights, safe supply, and enhanced rehabilitation that includes medically supervised detox and psychiatry.
I don’t get it, why is asking people to consume away from very specific places, like playgrounds, considered pushing them to the fringes?
Reading the article consuming is already prohibited (AND deemed constitutional and good policy), on school grounds, how is a playground any different?
Making it illegal to consume in any place will push them to the fringes. I can’t tell you how they see a playground different than a school ground - and I 100% do not want stray needles and syring out people in playgrounds but that is a separate issue- but I do know that giving a person fewer places to feel safe isn’t going to benefit them or encourage them to seek help. Prohibition laws only hurt society and those who are the most vulnerable in it.
If we give people a safe space, a safe supply, and unlimited mental health resources then they won’t use in playgrounds or bus stops anymore- problem solved with zero imprisonment and zero jail deaths.
This seems to be an argument to forcibly allow drug consumption absolutely anywhere. Schools, pools, restaurants, in the middle of the mall, etc.
This doesn’t seem like a reasonable argument to me, there are and there should be limits to where open drug consumption should be considered welcome. The question is why do we now decide to explicitly include children playgrounds in the list of those places, it’s entirely illogical.
Then you are twisting it to be something it’s not. I don’t want people shooting up in playgrounds or bus stops either, but creating laws to make these people into criminals is not how you get there. This is why I support supervised consumption which should come first, then make laws outlawing use in these other areas. They need a place to go first- a place that isn’t jail or a coffin.
I have been using drugs wherever I have been since the 60s. I do not advertise the fact that I am using and I do not share with others. If you want to use drugs get your own. Your toddlers will not be given any drugs by me.
That’s my job!
Because I don’t want to confuse, this was sarcasm. Pro responsible drug use, however.
It is stated in the article. The judge made an evidence-based decision that the likelihood and type of harm to persons who are not breaking the law (drug users) outweigh the other harms that are claimed
A bit misleading title of this article, the judge did not rule that the act is unconstitutional, instead they ruled that there are enough serious issues with it to suspend it until those issues can be tried.
IANAL but the injunction seems to be granted mostly because of the OD crisis, which is a worsening public health emergency, i.e. the risks of keeping the act in effect, before it is tried, are too great.
Do we even have a constitution?
We do but referring to it is a bit of an Americanism. When speaking about rights in Canada we generally speak in terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is a part of the constitution. Like, this ruling would be described in terms of being a charter violation rather than unconstitutional.
