A couple of crazy ideas
Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 1:32AM Read a couple posts today and came across a couple of crazy ideas that might just work in the local context, one from Andrew Sullivan's blog, and another from The Huffington Post. I like the sound of those ideas, and want to hear your views on them.
Conor Friedersdorf suggested this one on The Daily Dish regarding the proposed surtax on the richest 1% of the US population to support the cost of healthcare reforms: instead of raising taxes, we just stop giving them benefits. In the Singaporean context, this would mean the top tax brackets will not be eligible for things like housing grants, or tax caps on interest earned, or claim relief from income tax, or be granted housing subsidies, etc.
This has specific appeal to me due to my opposition to sliding tax scales. The money to run programs do have to come from somewhere though, but with proper means testing we can properly distribute the subsidies to those who need them rather than those who don't.
The second idea came by way of Nick Gillie's article in the Huffington Post, detailing the success and efectiveness of Drug Courts in the US in helping drug abusers quit their habit and back to a normal life. We don't have a system like that here as far as I know, and I believe it is worth pursuing.
Thoughts and comments?
benefits, drug abuse, drug court, taxes in Law, Politics, Singapore, United States
Reader Comments (2)
i like the drug courts idea too... Punishment has its purpose, but it's not the miracle cure to addiction... However, to implement such a system careful planning is required... Below are a couple of issues need to be taken into consideration before putting a drug courts system in place:
1) resource readiness - do we have the resources to supervise these abusers? It's not just the resources to supervise their movement, but also resources to provide treatment to them, to support them thru' the process of change... even if we have the numbers to provide the required services, the quality of it all needs to be assessed as well... or else, they'll be out on the streets with inadequate support, rendering them a danger to society... and in a way, it won't be fair to them if they get the green light to stay in the community only to be punished for a failure in the system if they relapse... which leads to my next 2 points...
2) Is our society ready to have an "unreformed" drug abuser out on the streets? i mean, you hear about people being concerned about the dangers of used needles in their neighbourhood... then there are those who cause public disorder when they're high... Would our society be comfortable to take such a risk... ?
3) accountability - if shit hits the ceiling, who becomes accountable? Is it the judge that made the wrong call to not put the guy behind bars? on what basis does the judge make that call? Was it because the treatment services was inadequate/inappropriate? What are the lines of accountability and would it be wiser to be safe rather than sorry?
i think the drug courts highlight the importance of treatment versus deterrence and i'm in favour of it. But i think the systemic links between the criminal justice system, the community services agencies, and mental health profession needs to be firmed up for this to work well...
just my 2 cents worth...
Thanks for the comment; I believe that an entire framework needs to be developed for this idea to work, and I agree it's not going to be a miracle cure. But I think having an entire support system that includes drug courts, counselors, officers, and procedures for following through etc would benefit society more than just shunting them off to jail. The focus, as you say, is treatment, giving them an out, a second chance, rather than further stigmatising drug abusers. Good points :)