Minimizing Harm

In considering the best policy for dangerous drug use a friend referred me to the idea of minimizing harm.

Whilst harm minimisation remains a highly contested term (Wellbourne-Wood 1999), there does appear to be a core consensus around the following principles:
Firstly, harm minimisation implies that drug use should be viewed as a public health, rather than a criminal or legal, issue. Drug users are entitled to be treated as normal citizens with the same rights and obligations as other members of the community (Single & Rohl 1997, p. 48).
Secondly, the harm minimisation approach is value neutral and accepts that illicit drugs are and will remain part of our society; that their elimination is impossible; and that further efforts to eliminate them may result in greater harm to society (Rumbold & Hamilton 1998, p. 135). Harm minimisation rejects the notion of drugs wars which inevitably become wars on drug users, rather than on drugs (Mendes 1999, p. 10).
Thirdly, whilst harm minimisation does not involve support for illicit drug use, governments acknowledge that where injecting drug user continues to occur, they have a responsibility to develop and implement public health and law enforcement measures designed to minimize the harm that such behaviours can cause, both to individuals and the community. These measures include education, drug substitution programs, needle-exchange programs, abstinence-oriented interventions aimed at
reducing drug use, and interventions aimed at reducing the supply of illicit drugs (National Drug Strategy Unit 1998, p. 17).
(Quoted from "Social Conservatism vs Harm Minimisation: John Howard on Illicit Drugs", Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 7 Jan 2001)

Drug users would gain much from "education, drug substitution programs, needle-exchange programs, abstinence-oriented interventions aimed at reducing drug use, and interventions aimed at reducing the supply of illicit drugs"

Charities and governments can offer these programs. It is important that we do not take them for granted. “The greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more the receiver develops a sense of entitlement.” (“That I Might Draw All Men unto Me”, Dale G. Renlund, Apr 2016)

Debt Limit

A short, brilliantly done funny skit that demonstrates very simply why we're in this economic mess.

A short, brilliantly done funny skit that demonstrates very simply why we're in this economic mess.
Posted by Mike Smiley on Sunday, March 10, 2013

https://www.facebook.com/mike.smiley.988/videos/442376592507280/

The GOP needs more Mormons

From "The GOP needs more Mormons" by Damon Linker

Why are so many members of the LDS Church are so immune to the Donald Trump's demotic charms? There are at least six distinct reasons.

1 - Mormons aren't angry
2 - Mormons disapprove of Trump's garish lifestyle
3 - Mormons dislike vulgarity
4 - Mormons prize law-abidingness
5 - Mormons like immigration reform
6 - Mormons don't hate Muslims

The antithesis of what I would want my son and grandson to be

“Not only could I not vote for [Trump], but I couldn’t sit and be silent as I watched him advance, he is the antithesis of what I would want my son and grandson to be, and I will not associate myself with him.” Representative Scott Rigell (NY Times Mar 2016)

"Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich. One of these men should be our nominee"

Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.
His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill. (Politico transcript)

-

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich. One of these men should be our nominee. I know that some people want the race to be over. They look at history and say a trend like Mr. Trump's isn't going to be stopped.
Perhaps. But the rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign. If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.