Nick Reding wrote a book about a small town and their methamphetamine problem. Now the author believes the drug is "only a symptom of a larger economic and ultimately political problem."
Which is code for we need to take by force (i.e. taxes) from people who earn money and give them to drug addicts.
"Meth doesn't cause the problems faced by [small towns] ... economy does, and meth is just the lens through which to see that," Reding says.
How does a bad economy force people to spend what little money they have on drugs?
How does any rational person say "I'm jobless so instead of educating myself or doing what ever I can to find employment, I think I'll become a drug addict."
While we like to think the conclusion of Reding's comments is to get government out of businesses way.
However, the conclusion Reding is really making is the government needs to take money from people who earned it and give to drug addicts.
People like Reding view meth heads not as addicts but as victims; personal responsibility is anathema.
Meanwhile people who believe in less government (and less taxes) look at this situation and see weak individuals who would rather get high then make a better life for themselves.
Ultimately, the economy has nothing to do with these meth addicts. They would be addicts regardless of the economy because they are addicts to begin with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment