Tomorrow's editorials: Union service fees and a drop in drug overdoses
Here are previews of editorials we're working on for tomorrow's paper. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside the editorials in the print edition.
-- In principle, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has an excellent argument for the so-called “fair share” law that went into effect in Maryland this week. It negotiates contracts for tens of thousands of state employees, whether they are members of the union or not. Conducting those negotiations costs money, and it isn’t right that non-members get the benefits without paying their share of the costs.
But the potential side effects of the law are cause for concern.
For one thing, employees who belong to other unions that aren’t recognized by the state as having bargaining rights would have to pay their union dues and the service fee. That will almost certainly endanger the existence of these smaller unions.
And for another, the service fees would be a huge financial boon to AFSCME. The fees — which still must be negotiated with the state — will cover more than just the cost of negotiation. Non-members may end up paying as much as members or nearly so to pay for outreach, educating the public about the work state employees do and other activities they may not wish to support.
-- A generation ago, former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke urged lawmakers to consider abandoning the criminal justice model for dealing with the country’s rampant drug problem and focus instead on treating people for their addictions. He was roundly criticized for the idea, and America went on to prosecute a fruitless “war on drugs” that two decades later it is still clearly losing.
But last week, city health officials announced a small but significant victory in that struggle that may yet vindicate Mr. Schmoke’s more humanistic approach to the scourge of substance abuse. Officials reported that deaths from alcohol and drug overdoses declined for the second straight year in the city and are now at their lowest levels in more than a decade. The reason? Expanded treatment opportunities for heroin users and programs that teach addicts how to avoid life-threatening overdoses even if they aren’t able to completely break the cycle of dependence.
With addiction at epidemic levels — nearly one in every six people in Baltimore struggles with a dependence on alcohol or drugs — there’s no way we’re going to make a dent in this problem simply by locking more people up.







Comments
Drug addiction is also a productivity issue. Addicted youngsters cannot go to work because they are physically and mentally debilitated. If their drug addiction is in the open they are ostracized by the hiring establishment and therefore clandestine addiction is common. When labeled a crime, addiction smolders beneath the surface and eats away at the fabric of our society.
If Baltimore is regarded as a microcosm of our urban areas, its one in six drug addiction rate is stunning. We will be drawing our leaders, educators, doctors and engineers from this tainted pool. Treatment without reservation or stigma versus arrest and the complete waste of human potential that it entails; why would we even have doubts which is better? That is because the war on drugs is now a cottage industry across the land. It is bread and butter for thousands who, if this inane war ends, will stand in unemployment lines. The choice is stark. Call addiction a crime, throw the flower of America's youth in prisons and lose America's future labor force or call addiction a disease, treat vigorously and make sure the labor force remains vibrant and viable.
No brainer
Posted by: No brainer | July 2, 2009 4:41 PM