In 1988 the federal government banned federal money from being used to purchase new needles for drug addicts. Recently, the Obama administration lifted this ban. The New York Times did an editorial claiming that the decision to ban federal funding for purchasing clean needles was responsible for the death of many who used dirty needles and contracted deadly diseases such as AIDS. They then praised Obama for lifting the ban.
If the question were whether or not the lift was good for public health, then the answer it seems would be that lifting the ban will help slow the spread of some diseases. That, however, should not be the question. The Constitution Party has a story about David Crockett that they use with some of their literature. I believe the name of it is “Not Yours to Give.” The question should be, does government have the right to force its citizens to pay for other Americans to have things? To rephrase this question, does government have the right to redistribute wealth?
Government owns nothing. Government receives its taxes, property, and consent from the governed. Therefore, anything given to anyone by the government actually is forced giving from the citizens. I, myself, have a problem with my money being given to drug users to keep them from getting deadly diseases. Do I hope that they get diseases? Absolutely not. I wish that all disease were eradicated, but I have a problem with paying for it. I also have a problem with the government subsidizing anything, much less something illegal. What else are we going to subsidize? How about we give materials for making meth labs safer. Let’s make a law saying that you can cook meth in the open so as to not harm others? Where does it stop?
Lifting the ban will help people from contracting disease as easily, but it is and should be unconstitutional. It is not yours to give.