Re: Andrew Holota’s column
Yes Mr. Editor, let’s look at the photograph (page one, May 23). How many in the picture are already on social assistance of some sort? Now, along with a free lunch, they want wine with dinner in the form of a “clean” hit of methadone. Perhaps the taxpayer should also provide an after dinner joint of maryjane, for medicinal purposes only, of course.
Is Abbotsford being sued for not doing enough to restore the (“families, relationships, careers, homes, self respect or even saving the lives”) of those on drugs? No, we’re being sued because the suers want to enhance, continue and legitimize their drug lifestyles.
How often the taxpayer has seen what is meant as short-term assistance for social problems accepted gratefully, then not so gratefully, then without thanks, then demanded, then taken as a right, then as a perpetual right.
I see that pattern as selfish and greedy on the receivers part. Well Mr. Editor, as a provider, I have those same traits, too. I and most everyone agree that users need recovery help. The emphasis is on the word recovery.
But what addict would take the hard road to recovery when you want to provide them, with little to no accountability, all of life’s basics and clean drugs to boot, for the rest of their lives? What you are endorsing and promoting by lifting the ban is perpetual drug enslavement.
So, in short, I do not believe the 2005 civic reps, in implementing the harm reduction ban, were misguided or short sighted.
However, I do believe the 2013 editor of the Abby News, in his efforts to rescind the ban, has been duped.
D Lynn Simcox