Quote:
|
Quote by: Chancellor Taking away federal law enforcement isn't a bad idea. The purpose of local law enforcement is to protect law-abiding citizens from the criminals.
It doesn't matter that people don't want to become addicted to drugs or alcohol (or tobacco or caffeine, for that matter): show me where the Constitution says it's the government's responsibility to treat people who have become addicted to substances they chose to take.
As for the environment in which one is raised, I was one of those Welfare kids who ran the streets unsupervised. I didn't start using drugs when I was 11, I stopped using them when I was 11 - and without the help of some government program. |
Please back up your first idea of removing law enforcement. That is a commie move that would go down the drain in a matter of days. It won't even get that far because people aren't stupid enough to take away law enforcement.
Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Amendment 10 in the Bill of Rights states that any areas not covered in the constitution or the amendments are left up for the state's to decide (i.e. abortion).
Don't get me wrong, I think welfare is totally inefficient and only does worse damage to the character and work ethic of the family on welfare. BUT, just because a program doesn't work, doesn't mean the goal of the program is flawed, just the program itself. Therefore, I think a good revisiting into how we can spend low amounts of money while offering (paid?) programs to educate and motivate lower class citizens on drugs and offer assistance in how to quit addictions. Careful attention could be paid to locate progress in some people, and lack of progress in others. See, that took like 3 minutes and there's a few ideas right there. Flaws? Sure, but it won't take a braniac to figure a better system out--you just need a drive to achieve the same goal.