The Associated Press has an article entitled Methadone clinic ban wins OK in House.
New methadone clinics would be banned temporarily in Indiana under legislation passed by the House on Monday.
The House voted 90-8 for the bill, which would place a moratorium on new clinics through Dec. 31, 2008, while the state studies whether regulations on them are sufficient.
. . .
Indiana has 13 clinics that administer methadone, a synthetic opiate that eases withdrawal pain for users of heroin or prescription painkillers such as OxyContin. The state approved two more clinics last year – one in Valparaiso and one in Indianapolis – after lawmakers partly lifted a previous moratorium that had banned new clinics for at least 10 years.
. . .
[Rep. Steve] Stemler said the state should step back and determine whether Indiana regulations are too lax.
Probably comparing apples and oranges here, but the story about methadone clinics, for some reason, struck me as similar to the debate about CAFOs, particularly as I read about the debate at a site called “Hoosier Ag Today” with Gary Truitt.
Apparently a bill requiring a moratorium on CAFOs is not going anywhere and even Phil Pflum’s HB 1197 which imposes a set back requirement faces tough sledding. Sen. Beverly Gard, chairperson of the Senate Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee says that the bill has too many loose ends to pass.
There are a number of CAFO bills going through the legislature, so who knows what we’ll end up with in the end. But, the approach to moratoria for CAFOs versus methadone clinics is interesting. The sense seems to be that methadone clinics ought to stop until we have proof that they aren’t too burdensome to the surrounding community whereas CAFOs ought to continue until we have proof that they are too burdensome to the surrounding community.
Well, duh. Social welfare programs get a presumption of hazard, whereas corporate welfare programs get a presumption of benefit.
While in principle, LP libertarians would likely oppose moratoriums on both (never having been big fans of the concept of “externalities” in the first place), you’ll hear a lot more of them squawking about the “threat” to CAFOs than to the ban on metadone clinics which is already in place and being extended.
This tells you a lot about the degree to which LP libertarians are still in bed with conservative Republicans, despite the decidedly un-conservative consequences of Republican power.
In other news, Indiana House Democrats continue to live up to the stereotype of spinelessness.
How much more proof is needed about the hazards of CAFOs?
We should look at other states that have allowed
their rural areas to be overrun by CAFOs and learn from their mistake.