E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Republicans betray voters with pseudoephedrine prescriptions

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Why should I bother voting for Republicans when they pull nonsense like mandating prescriptions for pseudoephedrine? Why not just vote for Democrats, who do not pretend to be the party of small government?

We need a new state program if this legislation passes. I want the state to pay for my doctor's visit every time I need a decongestant. Neither I nor my insurance company should pay for it - state government should pay for it. If state government wants this mandate, then state government should pay for it. Of course, a better option would be to not pass this completely unnecessary and wasteful legislation.

As I have pointed out before, 80% of the meth in Indiana comes from Mexico, according to the state police. Even if we eliminated every meth lab in the state, we will not get rid of most of it and we will further empower hyperviolent Mexican drug cartels. So we will restrict the liberty of our citizens and force us to spend a lot more money than we need to spend, in exchange for making the drug trade worse.

So what is my solution?

I reject the idea that I have to provide a better solution when attacking a policy that I oppose. A huge problem in our politics is the notion that we need to "do something" about a problem. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something, if that something is counterproductive or destructive. And we are already doing something because making and using meth is already illegal and the law is being enforced.

If we make meth available only by prescription in Indiana, we will see over-the-counter drugs with pseudoephedrine smuggled in from Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Kentucky - and not just for meth makers but also for law-abiding citizens who just want relief from congestion. We have already seen meth makers breaking into pharmacies with the current restrictions, and that will increase if it goes prescription-only.

We need to rethink the entire concept of the War on Drugs, which has given government the excuse to become bigger and more powerful while taking away our liberty. We need to stop treating drug abuse as a criminal matter and start treating it as a public health problem. Locking up drug addicts does not work.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.