- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'd rather pay to keep them locked up than pay to keep them high on drugs. But that's just me.
How dare you call yourself a Libertarian.
I'd rather pay to keep them locked up than pay to keep them high on drugs. But that's just me.
Libertarians are generally socially liberal and economically fiscal. I personally would like to see drugs decriminalized but still regulated with fines and taxes. The fines and taxes would go to pay for treatment programs.
The progressive move would be to simply increase harder punishments on drug offenders. Progressive = increasing government interference in people's lives.
What is amazing to me is that there are people on this thread - you all know who you are, and if you don't, we do - who immediately equate poverty with drug abuse.
That is absurd. In Florida, 20.8% of people over 50 years old live below poverty.
Some posters on this thread assume that the majority of those people are drug addicts. In Florida over 12% of the population of the people over 50 years old are unemployed. Of course that number does not include the people who have simply quit looking for work. Some posters here naively believe that anyone can work who want to work. Some posters here apparently believe that people over the age of 50 can easily find a job if they only wanted to work.
As often happens conservatives are either uninterested in facts or unable to understand them. Only "elitists" are interested in statistics. Most people who receive public assistance are not drug abusers. I would challenge Conservative to pony up with the facts to base her assertions.
My concern is that in the Obamation economy the number of people in need of help is astronomical and the tests will only add to cost problem that is already too high.
In the past year, some states have seen increases of 15% or more in their welfare caseloads, including Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Washington.
My concern is that in the Obamation economy the number of people in need of help is astronomical and the tests will only add to cost problem that is already too high.
In the past year, some states have seen increases of 15% or more in their welfare caseloads, including Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Washington.
In some ways, this would have seemed a no-brainer. While it got some political challenges, it seems headed for Constitutional muster as well.
I would like to think that this shoul dbe common-sense policy nationwide for anyone on any government assistance, to include those getting a government paycheck of any sort.
Constitutional claims or not, I think this one hard to oppose politically. Of course, I am for the legalization of all drugs, with conditions, but would still want drug testing mandated regardless.
Precisely. The vast majority of Americans want to work. It is part of our culture and heritage. More so that any other nation on earth, Americans place great importance on where a person works and what a person does at his/her place of employment. In the U.S. the social stigma of not working is huge. The assumption that with a real unemployment rate of well over 10% and God know how many underemployed in America that the majority of these people are drug addicts and lazy is stupid and childish. It would be damn near impossible to test these unfortunates every time before they got a support check or food stamps. It would also be demoralizing and unwarranted for a significant majority of them.
And that is fine. Allot of unemployed are not using drugs and will have no problem. Most of them even if they did use would stay clean to find a job anyway.
Is this the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" argument? The one which pretty much gives away that what is being called for is unnecessary and constitutes dangerous growth in government and its powers? Hmmm, interensting.
No it's a common sense in this case. To go into the military you get drug tested. To get most jobs worth having you get drug tested. Why should government welfare be any different?
Forgot to mention every government job requires drug testing. Police, fire, municipal etc. Why does welfare get a pass?
This is a great law!
Why should taxpayers support counter-productive pot heads?
Because it's government granted assistance. It's not a job you're doing. You're not applying for a position. I'd like to keep constant monitoring of the People by the government to the smallest value possible.
I understand why you would want to keep government monitoring to a minimum. In this case though, it is tax payer money going out, so they have an interest in it being used for what it is intended. I have seen way too many sell stamps at .50 on the dollar for drugs. It is sickening. So in this case, I have to go with "do it" as the infrastructure is already in place with other government positions at all levels.
I'd take it as a consequence of our system and economics. If they're selling them for drugs...well we gave them those stamps and once they have them; they are theirs to do with as they like. If we have a system like welfare, stuff like this is bound to happen. But that's the end all of it. I don't want to start excusing gross data storage and gathering and monitoring by the government of the People. Government cannot be trusted with the power it wields and will almost always abuse it. And for something like constant monitoring of people in general, people not being charged with crime; well I'd much rather err on the side of liberty on this one.
Well then we have to agree to disagree. I don't think it has anything to do with liberty. People want something for nothing, well nothing in life is free. Pee in the cup you get free money and food stamps, fail and you get nothing.
Has to do with that whole taking responsibility for yourself deal.
What is amazing to me is that there are people on this thread - you all know who you are, and if you don't, we do - who immediately equate poverty with drug abuse.
I wouldn't call it class warfare, but it is doing something that punishes the children.
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
I don't know about "something for nothing". There are certainly cases of abuse, and those can be addressed on the individual basis. However, welfare isn't just for the people on it, it's for all of us. The purpose being that if we can aggregate the support over the whole of us; we can prop up people long enough to see them through bad times. On the otherside, they can get a job and become productive again which overall nets positive for the rest of us since we can have a worker and taxpayer instead of a homeless bum.
In some ways, this would have seemed a no-brainer. While it got some political challenges, it seems headed for Constitutional muster as well.
I would like to think that this shoul dbe common-sense policy nationwide for anyone on any government assistance, to include those getting a government paycheck of any sort.
Constitutional claims or not, I think this one hard to oppose politically. Of course, I am for the legalization of all drugs, with conditions, but would still want drug testing mandated regardless.
I took drug tests for high school sports and still take them regularly for my job. I think they can handle it.They are also dehumanizing. Can you imagine having someone watch you take piss just so you could get money for food?
IMHO, this will push the focus on cannabis users and not cocaine, heroin, amphetamine and prescription pill addicts who are in real need of medical treatment.
But i do agree it is a step in the right direction.