and we’re off: 2007 legislative prefile — tracking meth makers
State Senators Derek Schmidt (S-15, R-Independence, the Senate Majority Leader) and Dwayne Umbarger (S-14, R-Thayer) have introduced a bill for the 2007 session which will expand the public offender registry list to include those convicted of charges related to production of methamphetamine, which is a problem in Kansas.
There’s no bill number yet, and the 2007 prefile has not yet been made publicly available, so here’s an online Wichita Eaglestory with the details.
The list includes mostly sex offenders and also the worst violent felons.
My problem with things like this is: where do they stop? If we include meth makers on the list, why don’t we include crackheads? And if we include crackheads, why not heroin pushers or pot dealers? How about people who smoke in a Lawrence bar?
In other words (and I’m trying to avoid invoking the “slippery slope” here, which I guess I’ve just done), I don’t like the government to get in the habit of making lists of people — even criminals. I can see the utility in having a sex offender registry, mostly because of the nature of sex crimes. However, I think that these lists can be carried too far.
I know someone who used to be associated with the state bureau responsible for cleaning up after busted meth labs — and that group has enough stories to have an effect on meth use (and hence production) by releasing one per day about the idiots they have encountered. I won’t repeat them here, because I don’t want to identify my friend, but suffice it to say that meth must burn up the brain cells pretty quickly.
09.30.2006 @ 23:48
Nice,
I wonder what sort of incentive or rather disincentive this sorts of listings provide for a person to rehabilitate themselves. It seems as a society we have given up on rehabilitation and forgiveness. It’s as if we find it too risky.
posting your article to kgb.
10.01.2006 @ 11:51
News stories in NY yesterday not about your registry but about how the Patriot Act pulled cold remedies with pseudoephedrine off the shelves. They featured middle-aged women griping about having to show ID and get their names recorded for buying Dimetapp.
Seems like this country is in list-making mode now. I’m not buying that any of it is reasonable.
10.01.2006 @ 20:55
Dr Paul: That’s a good point. But, in the case of felons who predate violently or sexually on others, I have a hard time working up sympathy for them. Not suggesting anything by that, BTW.
Jonathan: Some argue that the PATRIOT Act contains essential national security functions, and it might — but it also contains a lot of “anti-drug” pork.
And I think we can all see how that’s turned out.
10.02.2006 @ 13:00
This is, indeed, ridiculous. As if the War on Drugs hasn’t wasted enough taxpayer money to combat a “problem” that has paradoxically gotten worse since the “War” began, now we have lists of people who manufacture a particular drug.
And J.D., I don’t think your usage of the slippery slope was by any means unwarranted. People will naturally say that you’re just being too dramatic by suggesting that this type of list will lead to lists of marijuana users, but who would have thought that sex offender registration would necessarily be followed by meth production lists? When it comes to government intrusion into our private lives, there’s rarely a bad time to invoke the slippery slope, because all too often it’s an accurate forecast of things to come.