Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Dunmore Methadone Clinic

The Dunmore town council shot down a Methadone Clinic because of zoning, parking and pedestrian issues. But that is not the real reason according to Not Cease and NEPartisan. It's a classic case of NIMBY (not in my back yard). We went through this argument in Plains Township a few years ago and the NIMBY crowd was led by the then Mayor of Wilkes-Barre Tom McGroarity. In the end the place they put it was zoned for a medical treatment facility with a Dialysis Clinic next door so the Plains Twp fathers/mothers and interlopers from other towns couldn't block it.

As far as I know there has not been one police call to the Plains Twp Methadone Clinic since it opened.


People make stupid decisions in their lives. Does that mean you just turn your back on them when they want to make it right? I'd rather have someone hooked on methadone than heroin living on my street. And believe me, they live on YOUR street.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I used to work at the John Heinz rehab center as a security guard and my supervisor used to be one at the clinic and he said everyone there was fine. I should keep in mind that were were unarmed security guards.

Anonymous said...

Kind of similar to the local church that wants to house the homeless for a month. All of the so called Christians in the neighborhood are up in arms. Let's face it, most "christians" are hypocritical, frightened little people who only cling to God and religion because they are afraid of what will happen to them when they die. Boy, are they in for a shocker!!! In the words of the "mean old man" to hell with them!!!

Anonymous said...

The only pedestrians over there are Louie DeNaples landfill seagulls..

Big Dan said...

People are upset that the church in Sugar Notch is being told they can't house the homeless. I think the methadone clinic is a similar thing. I think it's consistent, if you are for the church housing the homeless and for the methadone clinic, and it's consistent if you're against both. What's not consistent, is if you're for one and not the other.

Also, for those who are against the methadone clinic, there's people already driving around high on drugs and alcohol, methadone clinic or not. I'd rather see them seeking help at a methadone clinic.

NIMBY - not in my backyard - homeless and drug rehab. What would Jesus do?

Anonymous said...

Not only is in wrong morally and ethically, it's against the law. Methadone clinics and their patients are protected under the ADA and cannot be discriminated against, barred from opening or treated differently than other such facilities. Towns, unfortunately, tend to learn this the hard way--in state or federal court at great cost to taxpayers. Politicians often see this as an opportunity to "get in good" with voters by fueling their fears and worries with speculation, gross exaggerations and outright lies.

Rep. Smith has been fully informed of the facts--how MMT works, what the stats are on MMT pts and driving ability (no impairment), why many pts require long term treatment, crime and property values stats (crime goes DOWN, property values are NOT affected), etc and has deliberately ignored the facts, choosing rather to waste taxpayers money in a futile attempt at discrimination and fear mongering, hoping he can ride to political victory as the "protector" of the townsfolk against the "evil" clinic and it's "evil" patients.

Additionally, I find it almost humorous (if it were not so sad) that one of the many things mentioned in opposition to these clinics is that they are "for profit"--as though that were wrong or unethical somehow. Almost every business in America is "for profit", including most doctors offices, and most abstinence based rehabs. Yet somehow, ONLY the clinics are wrong for making money doing their job. Why, exactly, is that?

Stephen Albert said...

"What would Jesus do?"

Simnple: To the best of my knowledge, He cured the sick...He didn't turn them away. He also didn't rely on legalistic tricks to deny help to those who needed it the most. See the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, verse 40.

I do agree that is is consistent to be against both the clinic and the TEMPORARY shelter...
...consistently ignorant ...consistently cruel ...consistently oblivious to reality

Mark said...

Anon-hole 6:50 AM said...

"Kind of similar to the local church that wants to house the homeless for a month. All of the so called Christians in the neighborhood are up in arms. Let's face it, most "christians" are hypocritical, frightened little people who only cling to God and religion because they are afraid of what will happen to them when they die. Boy, are they in for a shocker!!! In the words of the "mean old man" to hell with them!!!:



Whew!

Actually, the parishoners were perfectly fine with the homeless shelter, but the borough officials were, or, are not.

Ever here of a zoning variance, anon-hole?

So, if the parish was good with it, but the borough stepped in with an objection...why the Christian bashing?

Anonymous said...

i need to know who really wrote the 646 post.