kfet

Prince of Persia, it's mighty fun!

I love visiting Portugal, been a few times to Lisbon, amazing city, and to the Algarve region. Visiting Porto is still on my todo list, I hear it's really nice too.

Berlin is one of my favourite cities, it has a special vibe!

The proper question is “why not?”.

Someone was motivated and capable enough and there you have it :)

love it so far! not finished yet, but it is a lot of fun

The new Prince of Persia demo, and Child of Light, which I just started the other day.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely with you that there should be places for supervised drug consumption, as well as safe supply.

I just don't understand how restricting drug use on playgrounds harms anybody, it's got only positives that I can see. I would even go as far as saying that allowing drug use on playgrounds is harmful to drug users, because it encourages conflict with the public.

But I don't think we are discussing criminalizing drug use at all. Criminal records for drug use is not part of this act amendment, like not at all.

The NDP act amendment, which got suspended, is a project to restrict the drug use in some places, by directing police to approach the drug users, ask them to move elsewhere, and make sure they do. That's it, that's all there is, there's no jail and no criminal record involved.

As for the argument that barring playgrounds the only place left to do drugs is jail, that's just not serious, they occupy a very small part of the public space.

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.

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.

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?