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?