Texas Senate to Bail Out Junkies
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m a bit shaken by this. I hate to think that Texans can be this retarded. Here’s some news from KVUE, an Austin TV station.
The Texas Senate gave final approval to a bill creating needle exchange programs that allow people to trade dirty needles for clean ones. The aim is to help combat the spread of diseases like hepatitis and HIV.
“We have enough customers here, so anything that can reduce the number of new clientele that come to us, I’m extremely happy about,” said Dr. James Zachary, who treats HIV patients at the David Powell Community Health Center in Austin.
Approved 23-6 Thursday, the bill now goes to the House.
Uh, nice. So now us Texas taxpayers get to help do, in essence, a bailout for junkies? Wonderful. Here’s an idea: if you don’t want to get HIV, DON’T SHOOT UP! Here’s more.
The bill’s future is uncertain because Gov. Rick Perry’s office says he doesn’t support it.
Oh, good. At least there’s a bit of sanity left in the world. We read on…
“He believes the focus should be on substance abuse prevention, not providing an incentive to continue using illegal drugs,” said Allison Castle, Perry press secretary.
State Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, is the bill’s sponsor. He says studies show that’s not the case.
Mr. Deuell, you are a freaking idiot. Why on earth would you say something like that?
“I looked at the medical evidence from a lot of different sources and it doesn’t encourage drug use, it actually reduces drug use, gets people into rehab,” said Deuell.
Right. I’m buying that. Hey, I’ve got a bright idea! Let’s use some of that taxpayer money to hand out crack pipes also! I’m sure that’ll have a similar effect on people who smoke crack…rehab…yeah, this in no way encourages illicit behavior, right?
I think I’m gonna be sick.
You know what? If you are stupid enough to shoot up, fine. If you get a disease from it, fine. Hey, you are an adult, right? You are supposed to be responsible, right? It’s your choice to partake in risky behavior, right? It’s your freedom to choose your lifestyle, right? Why the heck should I have to help pay to support your lifestyle? Why should I be responsible to make sure that you are safe when you break the law and poison yourself?
Oh wait…it’s not my responsibility. I really hope this crap gets vetoed.
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to our RSS feed or help keep this site running!
- About admin
12 Responses to “Texas Senate to Bail Out Junkies”
Sponsors
Awards
March 24th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Your comparison between crack pipes and needles is off base. We do not have a reoccuring problem in America with HIV being spread through a crack pipe, but we do have that issue with needles. As far as the needle exchange program, the vast majority of that states already have this in place, Texas was just behind the times. Perry is just posturing like he always does, but it’s part of the reason he is so wildy unpopular in this state.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Is Texas behind the times, or do they really just have a better grasp of things?
My analogy IS on base. Both the needle and the crack pipe are drug delivery methods. They aren’t designed to deliver HIV, but ARE designed to deliver drugs. Therefore, why should we allow someone to trade in tools used for illegal activity for new tools that will be used for illegal activity? It doesn’t make sense.
Why should we reward dangerous and illegal behavior with a guarantee of safety while committing the crime? It’s nonsense.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Why are you arguing that the person using is committing a crime. For someone who argues for “individual rights” and “getting the government out of everything” you seem to have no problem with the government telling you what is ok for you to take into your own body. Odd.
And no your analogy was off base. Again there is no major disease spreading the nation caused by crackpipes. The point of the needle exchange program is to limit disease spread. They will use no matter if they have clean needles or not, but at least give them the option to have them to stem the tide.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
On your first point, the premise is a bit off. Let me clarify my stance.
If you want to use drugs, fine. If you willfully do something that you know could hurt or kill you (like IV drugs, not wearing a seat belt, etc.), then the risk is all on you. Why should taxpayers spend their money to make it safer for someone to do something reckless?
You are missing the point of the needle/crackpipe analogy totally.
I understand the point of the needle exchange program is to limit disease spread. It’s stupid to spend taxpayer money to help people commit suicide in a somewhat safer way.
There is more than one way to use heroin/meth/etc. You don’t have to shoot it. If they want to use it in a safer way, the options are on the table. We shouldn’t have to support their decision to do something stupid.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I understand the point of the needle exchange program is to limit disease spread. It’s stupid to spend taxpayer money to help people commit suicide in a somewhat safer way.
Yes but how about people that come in contact with those needle users. Aids spreads by more than just needles. Should we say, ah forget those people, they may not even know they came in contact with a junkie. And we could have prevented that junkie catching AIDS with a clean needle program, but nope, not with my tax money. Bad idea.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
That’s easy. Don’t sleep with junkies. Know who the people are that you plan to come in contact with. If you don’t know if the person you will be having sex with is a junkie or not, why are you having sex with them, anyway?
It’s all about personal responsibility. I understand the concern, but if people would use their brains a bit, there would be less cases of AIDS based on your scenario.
If people just practiced morality and common sense, the world would be a far better place.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Define morality. I guarentee you it’s different than mine. That is the problem with your so called “personal responsiblity.” You seek to force your view of what is moral and what is not upon others and say “eh oh well” if they have problems. I would rather try to protect all people, not just people who see the way I do and unfortunately for you history is not your side in this as the founding fathers avocated things like free speech for everyone, protecting unpopular speech, even though they might not agree with it.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I don’t seek to force anything on anybody, including my morality.
I define morality as following the teachings of God. It’s got nothing to do with doing what I want people to do. And I know this will probably descend into a discussion about ‘who’s religion…etc.’.
I tend to believe that the Bible is the word of God, and contains everything necessary for pretty much everything. Therefore, to be moral is to try to do God’s will.
Yes, I know there are moral Atheists. I was defining MY definition of morality.
There are good people who do good things. To show respect for others, kindness, and to take responsibility for ones self generally can be found in ‘moral’ people.
Oddly enough, they are also characteristics of Christians…
:D
March 29th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
You define morality as following the teachings of God? What God? If you say the God you believe in, lets say a Christian view of God, then we must ask, what Christian view? Your view? Or Al Sharpton’s view? Or Billy Graham’s view? So yes, the idea of you being able to define morality is a flawed one, morality is different for every person.
Ok fine that you think the Bible is God’s word. But I can pick ten other christians and I can guarentee you will have ten different interpretations of the Bible. Now unless you are going to try to say you are right and everyone else is wrong, you have quite an issue on your hands.
Ah you mean like the Christians that insisted that Obama was a muslim….or maybe those that said he would enslave the white race or maybe those that killed people during the Crusades.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Let’s get something straight about this: if the Bible is the word of God, and someone isn’t following those teachings (even just a little, see also: Nadab and Abihu), they are not practicing Christianity in accordance with God’s laws. Therefore, they are not Christians if they are promoting something that DOES NOT follow the teachings of Christ (for example, Billy Graham).
The Bible is NOT OPEN to private interpretation, so ten people with ten different interpretations is not scriptural. Therefore, if a person is interpreting the scriptures in ANY WAY other than what is contained in the context thereof are NOT following the teachings, and therefore ARE NOT Christians according to the scriptures.
I dare you to prove to me that those ‘Christians’ are truly Christians in accordance with scripture.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Again you are assuming that you personally know every single “correct” interpretation of the Bible. That the way you believe is “right” and every other interpretation “goes against the Bible.” And that is fine and well if you believe that, but it doesn’t equate itself well to reason. I get a little weary when someone says they have the market cornered on any aspect of religion.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
The only ‘correct interpretation’ is to read it the way God wrote it.
There is no other way, according to scripture.
Keep in mind, this site is dedicated to my political opinions. If my faith influences them, that’s fine.
Actually, if I allow the teachings of the scriptures to influence my opinions, that’s the way it’s supposed to be, right? Aren’t Christians supposed to let God’s word guide them in everything?
Good is good, bad is bad. I just call it like I see it. I don’t have ‘the market cornered’, but I bet God does. And I’m going to let his teachings be my guide.