This is from Scotland where Labour has mooted a plan to prevent drug addicts from having children.
The proposals, drawn up by Labour MSP Duncan McNeil, would require addicts to sign a "social contract", under which they would only get benefits and methadone if they agreed not to have children while addicted to drugs.
While not as extreme as Mr McNeil's last proposal - that contraceptives should be added to methadone - these latest plans do represent an extension of the state's influence into personal liberty.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Drugs Forum, which brings together a range of different bodies working with drugs policy and information, said the plans were "dehumanising".
She said it was wrong for the state to tell anyone not to have children and worse to single out drug users for attack.
Before you react remember these people are living off their fellow citizens, many of whom would never consent to supporting their actions. What about their liberty and choices?
The state can't tell people not to have children. I agree. But it can say that it will not pay them to. It amazes me that Mr McNeil's plan would be seen as radical. Good god. It is far more extreme to be handing methadone over to women on a daily basis while encouraging them to have more children with extra benefits. And yes. We do it here too.
(Also running a comments thread about a father who blames social networking websites for his teenage daughter's promiscuity.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The New Zealand government, specifically Anderton, really need to wake up to the threat of drugs, particularly 'P' to NZ society.
Gloria
Sorry to hijack a topic, sometimes I dislike the fact we can't start our own - but such is blogging.
"A horrified Christchurch dad whose teenage daughter invited a stranger home for sex wants tighter policing [by others] of social networking websites – some of which are now being banned in Australian schools."
When oh when will our media turn on a man such as this and say "you failed your responsibility as a parent, and it's time you started to catch up - don't blame society for your own shortcomings in parenting."
No, his daughter invites a man home for sex so it's for the rest of us to fix and probably pay for.
I have no problem with him looking for help to become a better parent, and I would also not object to paying for that help.
But I do object to him wanting us to pay for his inability instill values and/or common sense in his daughter by creating more laws and bureaucracy.
Belt, it's astonishing that he is laying the blame with a social networking website. He was finding condoms lying around after he and his wife came home. The daughter didn't need a website to finding somebody willing to use them. She didn't need a website to present her with the time and place. Their absence provided that.
Yes, these websites are a problem but only part of it.
So far the recurring themes here can be reduced to pretty much one statement; stop paying benefits and, presumably, problems will go away. How thoroughly Victorian.
Back in 15, If you are happy to pay for babies to be born methadone addicts that's your prerogative. If you are not, do you have a suggestion?
I support the methadone programme because it has been shown to reduce crime. But a condition of eligibility for the programme should be not getting pregnant. In fact, she shouldn't be dispensed methadone unless she has been given a 3 monthly depo provera shot.
I'm glad to read you support methadone programs. Your caveat about pregnancy is not unreasonable but what would you do if an addict became pregnant while on the program?
Also, I didn't comment earlier, but I think your comments about the Christchurch father are quite unreasonable. The story reads to me as if he's doing his absolute best to parent his daughter but that, in this instance, he's missed the significance of one site. The fact that he's come forward with the story further supports my view that he's a pretty responsible person. Parents can't be everywhere all the time and schools and the police have a complementary role to play to minimise broader social risks.
It's not what I would do. It's what she would decide to do. She knew the conditions of being on the programme.
Do you want govt to make the rules and then make provision for people to break them? At some point people have to take responsibility. If she can't take it for herself, tough. If she can't take it for the child then take the child off her.
Take the baby off the mother? That's a surprising answer for one who advocates small government? And do what, forceably adopt the baby?
I'm not suggesting for a moment that governments shouldn't have rules governing benefits etc. I just wondered what your solution would be in the hypothetical situation.
belt, it's depressing and annoying that for some people, the answer to idiots abusing *anything* is more laws, which of course end yp affecting the vast majority of responsible people.
It's regulation by the lowest common denominators of society and it's having the effect of turning responsible, adult citizens into State-managed infants.
Of course, we're free--free to do anything that's not verboten by nanny.
Post a Comment