Pubdate: Tue, 01 Jun 2010
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2010 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: 
http://www.sacbee.com/2006/09/07/19629/submit-letters-to-the-editor.html
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/376
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?136 (Methadone)

ADDICTS ON THE STREET WILL ONLY ADD TO COSTS

No one would be so shortsighted as to tell recovering alcoholics that 
they should no longer attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

But in his effort to propose a balanced budget without raising taxes, 
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger offers a similarly ugly idea, suggesting 
that California "save" $53 million by eliminating the subsidy for 
methadone for heroin addicts.

The Governor's Office, recognizing how wrongheaded the proposal is, 
makes no effort to defend it. By cutting $53 million, the state would 
eliminate $60 million in matching grants.

More importantly, most of the 35,000 people who are benefiting from 
the program would be in danger of returning to their old addictions. 
To feed their habits, many would return to lives of crime, costing 
society far more.

Democrats blocked the cut last week in budget committees. But the 
issue remains in play, adding to the strain on those whose lives hang 
in the balance.

"It scares me to death," Helen Camp, formerly hooked on prescription 
opiates, told The Bee's Cynthia Hubert last week. "I don't want to go 
back to where I was before."

The governor's proposed cut to the methadone program ought to be 
buried, never to reappear. But Democrats who control the Legislature 
have yet to offer budget proposals that stand a chance of saving such programs.

Assembly Democrats envision borrowing $9.2 billion in revenue 
generated by state programs, including beverage recycling. Leaving 
aside whether such a step is legal, it's irresponsible to patch 
together yet another budget with massive borrowing.

Senate Democrats are somewhat better, proposing to extend a tax hike 
approved last year and delay $2 billion in corporate tax breaks. Such 
revenue measures won't negate the need to make deep cuts, but perhaps 
they can save programs whose elimination will only spread costs elsewhere.

In confronting a universe of bad choices, the governor and lawmakers 
must ask themselves: Which of these will do the most harm?

Putting addicts back on the street would appear to be one answer to 
that question.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom