[QUOTE=peter12;7181491][QUOTE=2Stonedbirds;7181481]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
NIMBYs can't google? 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...76871614018754
I am generally opposed to the increasing NIMBY sentiment prevalent across our cities where residential property owners are able to exercise their collective voices to stop construction, development, or programs that they personally do not like - no matter the expense to the public good.
That goes for pipelines, condos, and safe injection sites. We have massive problems, and the solution is not to ignore the problem just because there is some short-term hardship.
This goes doubly for safe injection sites, in my opinion. Opposition to which ignores the immense hardship and misery of our fellow citizens because maybe seeing it up close will make you a little bit uncomfortable or inconvenienced.
The immorality of that position leaves me a bit incredulous, to be honest. |
I get that. I also agree that as a society we shouldn't turn a blind eye to the problem and hope it goes away. However, I dont think it's unfair to question impact on other people, not just those affected by opioid use.
I have a freind who's a paramedic in Lethbridge. He says his job description is essentially hitting people with NARCAN all day, sometimes twice. Frontline workers also feel this pressure. Also have another freind who's institutionalized because he cooked his brain on opiates, specifically codeine. Incredibly bright and went right down that dark hole with no turning back.
I guess my position is I would prefer we actually intervene in the usage rather than centralize it, regardless of detrimental affects. In Lethbridges case, it HAS NOT contained it to the site, Galt Gardens and the Northside is still the horror show it's always been. But now downtown is as well, and property crime is off the charts. Do we not also care about impact to the entire population?