« mailbag is full | Main | the meeting: use of force »

this offer brought to you by CRACK

"Get birth control, get cash," the flier reads. "If you are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol then this offer is for you."

Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity, or Crack is offering $200 to crack addicts and alcoholics to get sterilized.

Let's put aside the ridiculous acronym for a moment and think about one thing. What is a drug addict/alcoholic going to do with that $200?

If you answered "buy drugs or alcohol," you win.

Dr. Attilio Rizzo Jr., a social worker in Brookdale's psychiatric emergency room, said that the program was "a godsend" and that he had already referred one woman, who did not respond to his offer. "A lot of them are homeless and have H.I.V. and are on drugs and they don't want to have any more babies," Dr. Rizzo said. "I believe it's up to the individual to make that decision."

A person who is in the throes of an addiction is hardly qualified to make that decision. But that's not even the issue. What this group is doing is selective breeding. They are going into "bad" neighborhoods, posting up flyers, and basically paying off people to be sterilized. They don't care what happens to the newly sterilized person once they leave the office with their $200 fresh drug money in hand.

But, hey - they are championed by Dr. Laura.

It's not that I think drug addicts should be out having sixteen kids by the age of 18, but let's just practice some truth in advertising here. The CRACK flyers should really read: Out of crack? Getting the DTs? Desperate for a hit? Just come on in and we'll get your balls snipped or tie your tubes and in return you can get enough money to get you high for the rest of the week!

Saving the children and making the world a better place for crack dealers. Sell your balls for rent money.

Yea, I could go on. But I won't. I have a meeting to go to.


That is the most ASININE thing I've ever heard. Does the fine print say "Well, you're lowlives, and quite frankly we've given up on you".

I'm also more concerned over the fact that you can buy a handgun off the streets for that same amount of money.

My fiance and i are well beyond child-rearing years. Her daughter is using and pregnant. DFC says the child will be put in foster care. We can't let that happen to "our" grandchild. We have permanent legal custody of daughter's 2 other children, the younger a 4-year-old. What is the solution?

While it definitely comes across as tasteless, it will prevent them from bringing children into ruined homes and from adding another burden to the state's welfare rolls. This might be a case where the benefits outweigh the moral qualms. It's certainly a more productive effort than our silly War on Drugs.

Also, while these people may not be in a position to make an informed choice, they had a choice originally not to get messed up with drugs. We don't absolve the drunk driver who decides against better judgement to get behind the wheel, do we? (If we do, we shouldn't). Yes, I know, easy for me to say since I'm not a drug addict.

Well, michele, "informed decision" only applies to those of us who aren't at the bottom of the social radar screen.

I always worry when the moralists do something for the good of society. It usually means someone's freedoms are being fucked with, and in my opinion, that is what this is.

Larry... don't get me started with those gestapo bastards at DFC. Talk to a lawyer and petition the courts for custody of this child.

From the article:

From Jane

What nonsense. Freedom of choice applies only if you're using it to murder your unborn baby? People have no right to make decisions unless they're middle class?

I say line 'em up, let 'em sign a consent form, rip out their uteruses and give 'em $200.00 and a big bottle of aspirin.

Where is the principle of personal responsibility in all this?
Addicts may not be capable of making their own decisions?
At least the state is not rounding them up and sterilizing them for the State's benefit.
If they (addicts) are not capable of making lucid decisions about their reproductive future,should they be allowed to make decisions about their reproductive present?
How many more crack or HIV babies must be born?
Should they be aborted?
Addicts have the right to screw up their own lives;not screw up others,that , by definition is the boundaries of "Rights". Where is the debate about "Responsibilities"?

Listen, I have no problem with crack addicts no longer being able to reproduce.

I do, however, have a problem with giving them 200 dollars, in essence sending them out to buy more crack.

It's called motivation. BTW, if they are addicts - they have already found a way to pay for their addiction. They could be prostituting, dealing drugs, petty theifs or living on welfare. Addicts always find a way to pay. Letting them "earn" $200 by ending their reproductive cycle - could prevent or at least delay someone from becoming a crime victim ...

The $200 is a trade.Short term gratification in exchange for long term social agonization.
Expect numerous lawsuits in 10 yrs from sterilized survivors decrying the State's "taking advantage" with no mention of the prevention of long-term consequences.
since when is prevention of a problem a non-option to our duly elected government?

It's been said I was a paramedic too long.

I can't see any problem with the $200 for sterilization deal.
  • Is it because of the dead babies I've fought to push life back into, dead because the mother was too drunk or stoned to care for the child?
  • Is it the child with the head swollen to twice normal size from being beaten?
  • Maybe it's the children with fetal alcohol syndrome who will grow up to produce children with fetal alcohol syndrome.
  • Is it the kids who have "seizures" every Friday just after the lab closes down? The kids get admitted to the hospital and the parent can go out and get screwed up for the weekend.
  • Is it the little old ladies who get stomped so that their money can be taken to buy drugs? $200 is $200 dollars of abuse that won't happen.

I feel like I should be horrified by this, but I'm not. It's a great idea.

I was a paramedic for too long. Tough.

Where can I donate to help fund this?

I guess this came out all wrong. I just felt like while the sterilization part works on many levels, they shouldn't just send these people back onto the street to make crack dealers rich. It's treating the symptom, but spreading the disease.

Out of many bad ideas, this one doesnt stink so much. And even if they blow the $200 on drugs, at least for a week they wont do anything stupid like try to knock over a liquor store.

And for the cruel streak in me:
Maybe they'll OD.....How much hard drugs does $200 buy anyway?

Course if the crack addict was to raise the child and sell it... wouldn't they make more than $200?

Best idea I've heard of in a long, long time.

Michele, I understand your point about it just treating a symptom and spreading the disease, but I disagree. Addicts are going to find a way to get cash whether it's prostitution, robbery, or being sterilized. This seems to offer an alternative to prostitution or robbery, at least for a little while.

As for choice, they do have a choice. I think I would be a lot more bother by this if the only option was sterilization, but it's not. They can choose to have Norplant implanted or to get Depo-Provera shots. That option seems like a good deal all around. If they some day clean up their acts, their fertility is in tact in case they ever want to have a child.

The money is an incentive for this to happen. Otherwise, addicts aren't thinking about the consequences of their actions. They're only thinking about their next fix. If feeding the jones requires them to fuck someone, which results in a pregnancy and a crack-addicted baby, oh well. It's not something they think through.

A similar program has been in effect in Southern Calif for quite a while. The founder was on "60 Minutes" a few years ago, and, as expected, drew howls from the human rights/social worker/lefty crowd.

I see this as a triage program. It's sad but probably true that some folks are beyond saving--very likely crack hos fall into this category. But I think it's a good thing to prevent the births of unwanted, almost certain to be abused children.

And of course, by "in tact" I meant "intact." Sheesh.

What if a crack head wanted to get sterilized but couldn't afford it or couldn't get it together to go in and get it done? The $200 might be the incentive he needs, to everyone's benefit. Is anyone denying the crackhead's right to get sterilized if he wants to? Every hit of crack he takes is a bad decision on his part. The social workers tell him he can't help it. When he makes the perfectly appropriate decision to get sterilized, the goody-goodies tell him he doesn't know what he's doing.

Expect numerous lawsuits in 10 yrs from sterilized survivors decrying the State's "taking advantage" with no mention of the prevention of long-term consequences.

This isn't a state-funded program, so that would be a pretty dumb tack to take.

What Phil said - this isn't a State (in any sense) program; it's a private enterprise.

And, well, yes, the addicts are most likely to use the $200 to buy more drugs, yes. And? That's $200 worth of drugs they won't have to steal to buy.

I believe that in most communities with significant drug problems, there are already programs for those who actually want to stop using, correct? It appears to me that those who want to quit already have ways to at least attempt it (imperfect as those ways might be); those going in to be sterilised (or just get depo, which is also evidently an option) for a fix are not the same set of people, I'm sure.

This is treating the symptom and not the disease? So presumably you are worried about drug addiction as the disease, whereas kids born to drug addicts are merely a symptom?

I have much more compassion for a child brought into a drug-addicted family that doesn't want him/her, than for a drug addict. Drug addiction may not be totally voluntary, but neither is it completely out of an individual's control.

Should crack addicts have kids?
(a) Yes.
(b) No.

If you answered "(b)", then I don't see what's wrong with this program.

Anybody who'd give up their ability to have kids in exchange for $200 shouldn't be having kids, so no problem there. The only possible problem, is that the addict is going to go out and buy $200 worth of drugs. But they're going to go out and buy $200 worth of drugs anyway. People don't give up drugs (or other addictions) because they run out of money; they just steal to get the money they need to feed their addiction(s). The $200 is $200 less they'll steal, with the additional benefit that they won't be pumping out the next generation of criminals and addicts.

"A person who is in the throes of an addiction is hardly qualified to make that decision. "

Then they're not exactly qualified to make the decision to have a child either, are they? And how wel qualified are they to raise one?

To be fair, the woman who started the program adopts crack babies, which is why she started it. Her kids are screwed up, and she wants the addicts to stop bringing more doomed kids into the world.

Where was the offer for $200 dollars when I got myself sterilized? Oh, I wouldn't have qualified anyway because I wasn't a drug addict or alcoholic.

Not sure if I'm for it or against it, just know I didn't get any of it!

This is a fantastically great idea! Two hundred dollars is quite an incentive to these people. Hell, most of them would let you cut off one of their hands for $200.

Think of it as chlorination of the gene pool.

Now how much would it cost to get knee-jerk liberals to quit procreating......

Just for info, $200 is about 2 day's worth of crack, or at least it was a few years ago. Depends on how far gone you are, but if I was in that situation, I'd be lookin' at the sterilization benefits versus the windfall.