And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people
I'm curious about this, could you possibly provide a source?
And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people
I'm curious about this, could you possibly provide a source?
The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.
That's exactly what the woman is saying. Did you read the article before commenting?
It's pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC's conclusion
This was not the EHCR, this was the EHCR commissioner talking in a personal capacity. (As was made very explicit in the article.)
it confuses me why so few people see it that way
Willful ignorance fuelled by religious indoctrination that getting out of your head is immoral.
meme is geared towards the aforementioned 10-15% of users of any substance
I'd say that's arguable but even so, your statement wasn't geared that way. You said "users" without qualification, not "problematic users". I'm simply pointing out that there's a distinction between the two and one should not throw the baby out with the bathwater by assuming that all drug users are problematic drug users and then creating laws based on that very flawed assumption.
drug dealers are parasitical entities which are committing acts akin to murder or genocide
Some are. Some are decent and are helping people out because the government has chosen to put the multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminal gangs (the parasitical entities). Again, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. When society eventually pulls its head out of its ass and legalises and regulates drugs, I'll bet a large proportion of the people staffing the specialist pharmacies will be those same drug dealers doing what they always did, just in a legalised context: not only supplying but offering advice and guidance to keep people safe.
it’s hard to argue that we’re being punitive by not dedicating a safe space wherein to do drugs
I would argue that this is very much in line with the punitive approach of criminalisation, it comes from the same feelings of revulsion and delusions of moral superiority as criminalisation. It's simply another form of punishment: unnecessary, forced suffering.
Indeed, alcohol can be a problematic drug and is much more dangerous than most illicit drugs but do you assume that everyone who has a drink is doing so because they have a drinking problem?
Yeah but then how would the rich and powerful feel good about themselves?
"Increase social service programs so that we address the reason why they're homeless and doing drugs in the first place."
Doing drugs doesn't imply a problem. UNODC estimates that only 10-15% of drug use is problematic. It's not reasonable to assume that drug use is an escape from problems, any more than drinking alcohol.
what seems right
A punitive approach to drugs only seems right to the wilfully ignorant. Religion seems to overwhelmingly be the source of that will.
UNODC estimates that only 10-15% of drug use is problematic. That means 85-90% of users are in no need of treatment.
I notice you've completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)
I'm glad to hear that.