If location is the issue, why not move those ones to less controversial spots? If the problem is that they are ineffective, why keep any of them open?

You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.

Superficially, the Ontario government’s plan to close supervised drug consumption sites that are close to schools or day care centres makes sense. So does its proposal to spend $378 million more over three years on addiction treatment and homelessness support.

Unfortunately, the plan’s logic is perplexing. The provincial government will close 10 of 17 supervised consumption sites ostensibly because of their locations. If that’s the issue, why not move them to less controversial spots? The government won’t allow that. If the problem is that the sites are ineffective, why keep any of them open?

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Don't have an account? Create Account

Premier Doug Ford gave a pretty good clue as to the government’s real thinking when he spoke to reporters the day after the official announcement.

“As far as I’m concerned the federal government is the biggest drug dealer in the entire country,” Ford said, referring to the Health Canada approved drug consumption sites. “It’s unacceptable, it needs to stop. We need to get rid of safe supply and put money into treatment and detox beds. That’s what we need to do, not continue to give people free drugs.”

It’s a point with which one can instinctively agree. Giving addicts free drugs seems to make little more sense than giving alcoholics free booze.........

© National Post