Your opinions

By Staff
Other tax options should be explored
Editor:
It has become obvious that clarification of my position on increased taxes for a new high school may well be wrongly misinterpreted as opposition to the much needed new high school. No, nothing could be farther from the truth. I am 100 percent for expanding Hartselle’s academic quality, capacity and capability, always have been and always will be. Education is, and will always be, vital to everyone’s individual success and well being, as well as that of our communities, states and nation. What I do adamantly oppose is the manner, method and politics involved in this seriously important funding pursuit.
This is the same political crowd which, through deceit, half truths and obviscation, defeated a perfectly legitimate and honest source of revenue to accomplish what they are now crying we must fund at all cost. Apparently a new high school wasn’t important to them then, so why now? It is not too late to revisit this legitimately useful source as a solution, or partial solution, to our educational needs. But this crowd seems to lack foresight, innovation and understanding outside their own narrow minded political agenda. They want progress but what insight and attitude they may possess seems to be stuck in yesteryear. As should be obvious to everyone, alcohol sales violate no one’s individual right to “take it or leave it”, restricting no one’s choice while providing a very large source of tax revenue – at no increase in property owner taxes nor anyone elses!
Why must property owner’s always bear the brunt of funding for any and all purposes? As an example of innovative thinking, how about placing a tax on containerized beverages, including water but excluding milk and milk derivatives? These are consumed, not through necessity but, through perceived pleasure – a luxury. If you want it, you pay for the beverage, plus a bigger better school. Another thought is, since all people utilizing Hartselle’s School System are not Hartselle property owners, a fairer tax would be, like it or not, increased sales tax – if I pay, everyone pays.
At the rate we are going, if there is light at the end of the tunnel, it obviously is a train headed in the wrong direction.
James L. Nix
Hartselle
Treatment, not jail is the answer
Editor:
A Join Together panel led by former Governor Mike Dukakis (D- Massachusetts) and State Representative Pat George (R- Kansas) found that state governments bear the financial burden of the consequences of drugs and alcohol.
Over 13 percent of their budgets are spent on problems related to drug and alcohol use. Less than 4 percent of this is spent on prevention and treatment, while more than 96 percent pays for the social, health and criminal consequences that result from our failure to apply what we know about how to prevent and treat substance use problems. The average percentage of state agency budgets spent on alcohol and drug related problems: Child Welfare 70 percent, Criminal Justice 77 percent, Juvenile Justice 66 percent, Health 25 percent, Mental Health 51 percent, Welfare 16 percent – 37 percent.
In Alabama the numbers are even worse. This fiscal year we will spend more than $1.2 billion, in state funds, on the effects of drug and alcohol use but less than 1.4 percent of that will be for prevention and treatment. Every $1 invested in substance abuse treatment has a return of $7 in cost savings from reduced health costs, crime, lost productivity, etc. The cost of treatment is significantly less than the cost of incarceration. According to the Institute of Medicine, the cost of incarceration is about $40,000 per year compared to $12,500 and $3,100 for residential and outpatient treatments, respectively.
Advocacy applauds Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb for her commitment to having a Drug Court in every county; however, in order for this to be successful, we must have more state funded treatment. We stand ready and willing to work with the governor and legislature on these issues.
Our state leaders must implement more effective alcohol and drug policies that will save lives, restore families and reduce crime. Presently the cost, in money – and more importantly, lives – is far too great.
Johann Caris, President FORMLLT. Michael McLemore, President Alabama Voices for Recovery