Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Have you heard about this?
First, the article states that : "California taxpayers will no longer help pay the cost of impotency drugs for registered sex offenders under legislation signed Tuesday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger."
A little further down, it states that : "Federal support for subsidized Viagra was curtailed earlier this year when a New York state audit found nearly 200 sex offenders benefiting from the program."
According to the FDA's website, "The FDA approved Viagra on March 27, 1998." That's over seven years ago!
So, finally, somebody came up with the bright idea that giving registered sex offenders Viagra was a bad idea. It's not bad enough that it was happening, when you think about it. But, in California, it wasn't enough to just create an administrative rule that sex offenders couldn't get Viagra from the state for free, they, actually, had to pass a law! Then, when it went to the Governor's desk for signature, the fact that he actually signed it was considered newsworthy!
You have to remember how government works, in the US. Legislatures make laws that, among other things, create government programs. They don't run them, they just create, give purpose and general direction, and, sometimes, provide funding. It is, then, up to the Executive Branch (the President leads the Federal Executive branch, state governors head the Executive Branch of their respective state's government) to "execute" the law, and create a framework to make the legislative intent happen. That includes making administrative rules for each program.
So, to recap, in California, it wasn't enough for Governor Scharzenegger (or someone below him with the appropriately delegated authority to make the decision) to say, "Giving Viagra to rapists and child molesters is a bad idea, let's not do it.(or stop doing it)" The issue had to be brought before the state legislature where it was written into a suggested law, discussed, and, no doubt, debated.
Where is the discussion or debate in this issue? Did anyone really think that keeping rapists and child molesters from getting free Viagra was a bad idea?
There are only two things that I can think of that are missing from this article, though:
1) Why did it take so long for this to be decided? Why wasn't this an "Oh! Of course!" idea from the moment that Viagra started being covered by whatever health coverage the state provides?
2) So, the registered sex offenders are no longer being given free Viagra by the state, is there anything being done to prevent them from purchasing it on their own? A felon convicted on firearm related charges is no longer eligible to legally own a firearm upon release from prison, ever. Read that last carefully. The felon mentioned above is not able to purchase or own a firearm, ever. It's not that the state doesn't give him one, he can't have one, period. So, why are sex offenders allowed to procure ammunition for their "weapon of choice"?
A little further down, it states that : "Federal support for subsidized Viagra was curtailed earlier this year when a New York state audit found nearly 200 sex offenders benefiting from the program."
According to the FDA's website, "The FDA approved Viagra on March 27, 1998." That's over seven years ago!
So, finally, somebody came up with the bright idea that giving registered sex offenders Viagra was a bad idea. It's not bad enough that it was happening, when you think about it. But, in California, it wasn't enough to just create an administrative rule that sex offenders couldn't get Viagra from the state for free, they, actually, had to pass a law! Then, when it went to the Governor's desk for signature, the fact that he actually signed it was considered newsworthy!
You have to remember how government works, in the US. Legislatures make laws that, among other things, create government programs. They don't run them, they just create, give purpose and general direction, and, sometimes, provide funding. It is, then, up to the Executive Branch (the President leads the Federal Executive branch, state governors head the Executive Branch of their respective state's government) to "execute" the law, and create a framework to make the legislative intent happen. That includes making administrative rules for each program.
So, to recap, in California, it wasn't enough for Governor Scharzenegger (or someone below him with the appropriately delegated authority to make the decision) to say, "Giving Viagra to rapists and child molesters is a bad idea, let's not do it.(or stop doing it)" The issue had to be brought before the state legislature where it was written into a suggested law, discussed, and, no doubt, debated.
Where is the discussion or debate in this issue? Did anyone really think that keeping rapists and child molesters from getting free Viagra was a bad idea?
There are only two things that I can think of that are missing from this article, though:
1) Why did it take so long for this to be decided? Why wasn't this an "Oh! Of course!" idea from the moment that Viagra started being covered by whatever health coverage the state provides?
2) So, the registered sex offenders are no longer being given free Viagra by the state, is there anything being done to prevent them from purchasing it on their own? A felon convicted on firearm related charges is no longer eligible to legally own a firearm upon release from prison, ever. Read that last carefully. The felon mentioned above is not able to purchase or own a firearm, ever. It's not that the state doesn't give him one, he can't have one, period. So, why are sex offenders allowed to procure ammunition for their "weapon of choice"?
