Update: I just caught the news on this issue. It passed 71% to 29% (I'm surprised it had that many naysayers). What I found interesting though is that if you knew nothing other than what the anchorwoman said about this tax you'd think that the tax solely supports rehab programs for drug addicts. Her approach seemed designed to give that impression.
Originally from 10/28/09:
I've been seeing signs like that for a few weeks now. I just got around to checking out the
website it mentions on there.
Apparently COMBAT is the name for a sales tax that is used to fund the war on drugs in Jackson County, MO. While it is true that it is not a NEW tax, I am not really sure how that serves to make the tax more acceptable, it is still extra money that people would have if they don't approve it. But I'm going to spend the rest of this blog questioning some of their support for the tax (even if I do a pitiful job of it as I do):
Drugs are a factor in many crimes. About 53 percent of inmates in state prisons and 45 percent in federal prisons were abusing or dependent upon drugs in the year before their incarceration.You're right, our current set up is bad and leads to crime but how about some evidence that your war on drugs is actually doing something to combat these rates? Also, this fails to prove that drugs caused these inmates to commit their crimes and if we were to accept that it does then how do we know that it would be worse if we weren't fighting the drug war?
COMBAT funds 24 positions in the Kansas City Police Department and a total of 18 in Blue Springs, Grandview, Independence, Lee's Summit, Lone Jack, Oak Grove and Sugar Creek and in the Jackson County Sheriff's Department. COMBAT funds 44 positions in the Jackson County prosecutor's office, including 15 assistant prosecutors and 29 investigators and support staff. The anti-drug prosecution unit filed 3,826 serious cases in 2008.COMBAT is critical to incarceration. The tax funds 36 corrections officers, 17 sergeants and lieutenants and seven support staff in the Jackson County Detention Center. Without that money, the detention center would have to close two floors and release some 260 inmates due to lack of supervision, according to the corrections director. The inmates were convicted of violent crimes, sex offenses and other felonies.This indicates that the people shopping in the county would save a heck of a lot of money ($4.38 million assuming an average salary of $30,000) if they nixed the tax. What tells us that the county and cities wouldn't find other money sources to prop up those positions? I'd bet almost anything that they wouldn't actually get rid of all those people even though a case could easily be made that we should. What makes an anti-drug case "serious" anyway? Why does it have to be violent criminals and sex offenders who are released, and not just drug offenders? Its fairly obvious that it would be felony offenders who would be released since its very difficult to be imprisoned for misdemeanors and even if someone is they are not in for any long term (its kind of the definition of misdemeanor I believe).
Comments (6)
Here's a thought. Since the US is outsourcing so many jobs to China and India (due to their ability to make and do everything cheaper) why don't we send our convicts to prisons located in those countries?
@Botolf - I like that idea!
at least 90 % of crime is drug related,,, yes,, i just made that up,, i have no source for that other than my common sense...
and not because the offenders were turned into drug crazed evil people bent on the distruction of everything around them,,,, because of the cost...
burglars are not burglars because it is just good business,,,, its a means for a fix...
legalizing drugs,,, of any kind,,, (legalize some lesser drugs,,, ive heard,,,,) hahahahahaha,,, legalization = taxes,,, look at the taxes weve already put on legal drugs,,, smokes and alcohol,,, it would be higher on other drugs,, keeping them still out of reach for the average user...
legal is bad,, illegal is bad,, indifference would be the only answer,,, not combat..
if ears wants to give something free to losers,,, why not drugs,,, free drugs for all losers,,, they wont be breaking into any more houses or businesses,, their dealers will have to seek gainful employment,,, they would just fade away...
and the crop value of pick a drug,,, is not expensive at all,,, billions of dollars would be saved...
i have a feeling once calderons term is finished in mexico,,, i hope anyway,,, the pan (party) will be finished here forever... and i doubt the next president of mexico will be so willing to go to war against their people to please ears...
hopefully someone will win with the sense to tell the us to get a grip and quit whining....
gotta love a drug war,,, even if it never has, nor ever will solve anything...
combat works,,, hahahahahahaha,,, if your goal is to increase the body count,,, it does...
@mejicojohn - There's times when I wish I could rec a comment and this is one of those times.
Also, I know for a fact that there is still some big drug "problems" in that county so obviously this tax isn't doing its job all that well after 20 years in existence. Also, the websited talked a lot about the DARE program which frankly was little more than an interesting excuse to not have regular class for a little while. Not to mention that I didn't see it doing much good considering how rampant drug and alcohol use and abuse was at my school when I was there (actually one guy I knew had been selected as an honored graduate of DARE or some craziness like that and he was already smoking pot on weekends and by four years later he was an alcoholic, tobacco and weed abuser who also used a few other drugs recreationally).
Throw more money at the problem!
I mean, it's worked so well thus far . . .
@moritheil - What could go wrong? Â Besides everything...