Kentucky's New Heroin Law Marks A 'Culture Shift'

a reply to: butcherguy

I agree! Let's not use tax dollars to help them! BUT...let';s go all the way. If you're sick and cannot affird a doctor, let's not use precious tax dollars to fund free clinics! Not my money! And hey..let';s not let those moochers use public roads! And if their house catches fire or disaster strikes, we don't want them freeloading on our tax-funded emergency services! And keep those worthless loafers out of our schools, cause our taxes only go for us, amirite?

Sarcasm aside, I'd rather my money go for helping others, even if it does mean giving them clean needles or heck, even drugs that aren't laced with rat poison, than putting them in our incredibly broken prison-for-profit system.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

It isn't just about my tax dollars subsidizing needles and drugs and programs to get clean. Inevitably addicts wind up unable to hold down jobs which renders them unable to feed, house and clothe themselves ... pretty soon, I'm on the hook for all those things too out of my own pocket.

Basically, I'm paying for their bad habit.

Let them legalize it. Sure, but don't make me pay for the inevitable consequences of the addiction. No one forced an addict to take that first hit. So why am I subsidizing their decline?

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: butcherguy

I agree! Let's not use tax dollars to help them! BUT...let';s go all the way. If you're sick and cannot affird a doctor, let's not use precious tax dollars to fund free clinics! Not my money! And hey..let';s not let those moochers use public roads! And if their house catches fire or disaster strikes, we don't want them freeloading on our tax-funded emergency services! And keep those worthless loafers out of our schools, cause our taxes only go for us, amirite?

Sarcasm aside, I'd rather my money go for helping others, even if it does mean giving them clean needles or heck, even drugs that aren't laced with rat poison, than putting them in our incredibly broken prison-for-profit system.

Nice hyperbole.

I like helping people who need help, but I there quite a few addicts who use the public assistance to subsist in their addicted state. We enable rather than actually "helping."

Quite a few addicts need to actually hit rock bottom before they will start to admit they need that help.

That's different than the person who would use the assistance to climb up and out of their hole.

a reply to: Ironhawke

I'd rather my money go for helping others, even if it does mean giving them clean needles or heck, even drugs that aren't laced with rat poison, than putting them in our incredibly broken prison-for-profit system.

I think it is admirable that you give all of your extra money to support addicts.
You do do that, I guess?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
Let them legalize it. Sure, but don't make me pay for the inevitable consequences of the addiction. No one forced an addict to take that first hit. So why am I subsidizing their decline?

Well, I guess your paying for the right to not be forced to have 8 foot security fencing around your property. Or having a 50 percent chance of being car jacked every time you leave your house.

Fact is, no country has enough jobs to have 100% employment, so there's always going to be people who can't find work and the so called "junkies" are the most likely to be the ones to be discriminated against and not be able to hook employment up.

Wouldn't you rather just pay a few bucks now, rather than deal with the consequences that come, when your grandmother can't leave the house without being robbed by some crazy dude with a dirty needle ?

The hungry don't stay hungry for long.

a reply to: DAVID64

This is an awesome step.

Addiction is not a criminal behavior.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I am for decriminalization.
I am for education to prevent addiction.
I am against spending tax dollars on the results of people's poor decisions.

Then stop paying taxes.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I isn't irrelevant when you take into account that I don't believe that tax dollars should pay for anyone's medical bills.
Maybe if we didn't take care of all the potential Darwin award recipients cradle to grave they would have some incentive to stop doing stupid crap.

This is why tax evasion should be encouraged.

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: butcherguy

I agree! Let's not use tax dollars to help them! BUT...let';s go all the way. If you're sick and cannot affird a doctor, let's not use precious tax dollars to fund free clinics! Not my money! And hey..let';s not let those moochers use public roads! And if their house catches fire or disaster strikes, we don't want them freeloading on our tax-funded emergency services! And keep those worthless loafers out of our schools, cause our taxes only go for us, amirite?

Sarcasm aside, I'd rather my money go for helping others, even if it does mean giving them clean needles or heck, even drugs that aren't laced with rat poison, than putting them in our incredibly broken prison-for-profit system.

Whether you realize it or not, using the executive branch of government to browbeat your fellow citizens into funding the programs you value, is morally wrong.

You can pretend to be moral by hiding behind law enforcement all you want, but you are not fooling anyone, you--and anyone that agrees with your position on taxation--are authoritarians.

The government should only be paying for public infrastructure, and they can easily pay for infrastructure by raising tariffs on foreign trade. There is no need for the vast amount of taxes we pay, especially income taxes.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Oh, so it's my fault the junkies started being junkies? I made them start using?

I don't think so. Way to threaten me though. I should fear junkies so I should keep them fed, clothed, sheltered and appeased in their addictions because they can't get work once they ruin their lives with drugs.

Makes perfect sense.

/sarc

Decriminalization won't work. Things will get worse. Yet another scheme sold to gullible plebs.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I am for decriminalization.
I am for education to prevent addiction.
I am against spending tax dollars on the results of people's poor decisions.

So you must think that addicts have never paid taxes?I know from experience plenty of working,tax paying addicts,

originally posted by: glen200376

originally posted by: butcherguy
I am for decriminalization.
I am for education to prevent addiction.
I am against spending tax dollars on the results of people's poor decisions.

So you must think that addicts have never paid taxes?I know from experience plenty of working,tax paying addicts,

I never said that addicts don't pay taxes.
I didn't 'think it' either. The purpose of taxation isn't make sure you use it if you pay it in.... that attitude is part of the reason that we have an 18 trillion dollar debt.

I believe that is wrong to spend tax dollars to rehabilitate the lives of people that make extremely poor decisions.
Ever see an ad on TV for heroin?
Ever hear a teacher tell little Johnny that he should strive to be a heroin addict?
Anyone that uses it made a very stupid move.

a reply to: ketsuko

lol, Threaten? I was purposely being over dramatic (probably immaturely) to get a point across, as if extremist conservatives are never guilty of that. It probably wasn't the most intelligent way to go about it, but I'm a little offended you'd take it as a "threat" to be honest.

Anyway........... Like it or not, you live in a society where there are people who have made bad decisions. Sweeping the problem under the carpet, or just jailing them has proven time after time to be a truly flawed policy, that just costs society more in the long run and has an over all negative impact, that does end up effecting innocent people.

Its about holding TPTB to account, ensuring tax dollars are being spent efficiently, rather than being wasted vindictively.

So yes, it does make perfect sense.

a reply to: butcherguy

Well, as it turns out, it isn't tax money they will be using to pay for the bill. (Could someone please pass the duct tape? After reading the following my head is about to explode!)

FRANKFORT, Ky. – In one of the final actions of the 2015 General Assembly early Wednesday morning, Kentucky lawmakers raided the balance in the public employee health insurance fund for $63.5 million. A bill amending the state budget unveiled in the session's final hours authorized the transfer from the health insurance fund to government's "rainy day" fund where it will ensure the state has money to pay for a few special appropriations made this session. Those appropriations include up to $10 million needed to cover a shortfall in public school funding announced earlier this year, $10 million in 2015-16 to fund the new law to combat heroin abuse and $7.8 million to help cover losses due to declining gas tax revenues to county and city road programs.

Okay, from that you would probably conclude that this is tax money that was directed to be used to pay health insurance for state employees would you not? Guess again!

At the start of the current fiscal year the rainy day fund had what is considered a very low balance: $77 million, or less than 1 percent of annual state General Fund revenues of $10 billion. The public employee health insurance fund gets its money from employer contributions and premiums paid by state workers and public school employees. McKim said, "A significant fraction of that fund represents what we pay in. So, in essence, this transfer is a selective tax on public employees."

Seems that they want to make sure that the self-funded public employee health fund is kept on the brink of instability.

The action frustrated leaders of public employee groups. "Those savings should have been left alone and used to avoid future premium increases and/or benefit reductions, ..." said Brent McKim, president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association. "We are a self-insured fund. ... Money saved in one cycle can affect the plan design and costs in the next."

www.courier-journal.com... d-pay-projects/70547366/

And for the record: I agree with you that the public shouldn't have to shoulder the costs of bad decision making by individuals. I've never dealt with heroin addiction but having a close family member who was a crack addict didn't make me think that it was the public's responsibility to take care of him. Three times through rehab wasn't cheap and wasn't effective. And those weren't state-run rehab centers. The ones we used had far, far higher success rates than any state-run facility.
Locally, I'm told that the state-run rehab facility is just a place to meet up and get info on where to get the drugs. "Man, I've got six new sources now!" one recent grad was heard to say.
Needless to say, I don't have the answer to addiction. But I do know that the heroin epidemic caused by the legislature closing down the "pill mills" is having a widespread effect not only in our state but in surrounding states as well.
I'm for trying legalization and decriminalization. It seemed to work for the country for a long, long time. As hard as it may be for some folks to believe, there was a time in this nation when the government didn't care what you put into your body. If today's drug laws had been in effect during the early years of our history, our history might be very, very different since some of our most creative thinkers would have been in jail for their use of drugs.

a reply to: diggindirt

Wow. They dug into the savings of a very select group of citizens to pay for it. They have seen a ripe apple tree to raid and they are doing it.
A relatively small group of people that will be Pissed off about too. Sneaky and smart, those politicians.
I hope the employees raise a stink about it. ... or it will happen again to pay for something else next time they need money.

these places are a total racket. social workers ALWAYS send someone who admits to drugs, even harmless occasionl use, to treatment. for a mandatory 30-90 days of 500-1000 dollar a day inpatient treatment. often out of pocket or through insurance, you have to be very poor to get it free. so someone admits they do drugs, get locket up in a facility for three months involuntarily, and walk out with a 90,000 dollar fee. people who don't even desire to stop are sent in. people who only smoke weed occasionally. they want all the paitents they can get, so they "work with" social and judicial departments to get "referrals". yet they are not proven effective, their success rate gathering methods are very dubious and biased. they don't use scientific methods, most patients never or rarely get to talk to a psychiatrist or anyone with a degree beyond 2 year consoling degree. they are just trying to make money, why do you think there are so many of these places popping up? are there THAT many kind people who want to help addicts, or are we seeing more people cashing in on the drug problem?

a reply to: butcherguy
Oh, it's not the first time it has been done and it is always done at midnight on the last night of the session. If you want to see the results, just look at the public employee retirement systems. Even before Obamacare put them much further into the hole, the legislature was dipping into their funds, costing their loyal retirees thousands in increased premiums and reduced benefits.
Since that fund is self-funded by the employees I'd call this theft, pure and simple. But I'm not a politician.
This is the exact reason I am so thankful for my father's wisdom on retirement. He always admonished me to never, ever depend on government to take care of me in my old age---and that included government pensions.

a reply to: DAVID64

Suboxone saved my life. # Kentucky lawmakers. I would be dead if I lived a few hundred miles south of were I did when I got clean. That is horrible, backwards, intolerable bull#.