To clarify my views on needle exchange programs and methadone treatment, I really don't think taxpayers should be paying for those either. However, they are both less objectionable than actually doling out heroin itself; especially methadone, as it is often a step "down" for addicts who can't quit cold turkey.

>>6: Cute. But if you're trying to say that the clergy of an often-violent religion speaking out against violence is anywhere near the level of helping heroin addicts stay stoned and addicted, you're nuts.

>>11: See any proper socialist country before capitalistic reforms. Or hell, see California... until recent reforms, my sister, a single mom, intentionally stayed unmarried and unemployed, even though she had kids to support, because she could make more from unemployment that way than she could have on an entry-level job. If you could choose between working and getting paid or not working and getting paid, which would you choose? I like your point in >>13, though.

>>17: Good argument.

>>20: I don't object so much to tax money being used to help drug addicts; though, like just about everything, I think private groups could do a better job at it (recall the part in The Autobiography of Malcolm X wherein he talks about how his group was highly successful in helping addicts get off their stuff cold-turkey with some good ol' fashioned tough love). I just think this is a piss-poor way to help addicts, as it does little to actually help them; I think it's much more logical to get smack addicts to stop shooting stuff in the first place instead of merely helping them shoot stuff more safely. Really, am I way off base on that? It makes perfect sense to me.