Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Robert Frederick's avatar

- comparing safe consumption sites to defibrillators in community centres is ludicrous. No one chooses to have a heart attack, all drug addicts have at some point made a conscious decision to start to use drugs.

Susan's avatar

You predict more disorder after closure, but how much disorder was already associated with the sites themselves? You are assuming these sites reduced public disorder, but provide no evidence for that claim. Therefore the prediction that closure will worsen neighbourhood conditions should not be accepted without supporting evidence. Indeed, other neighbourhoods have recovered when their sites were closed.

As a councillor 40 km away from the downtown core, you and your constituents (which certainly wouldn't welcome injection sites in their neighbourhood) are largely insulated from public drug use, disorder and trespass to property including arsonists and squatters, dealers, gang and associated gun violence, needle and crackpipe litter, open prostitution and coerced sex work, shuttered businesses -- and I am pretty sure no daycare in Stittsville was forced close due to the dangerous drug addicts and school recess doesn't require police escorts.

You have a right to your opinion, but as an elected official you should be mindful about representation especially when advocating for a policy that you are unaffected by.

4 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?