- Joined
- Oct 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,276
- Reaction score
- 5,788
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
It is actually a great idea. There is a large faction of people that are on welfare because they can't get a job due to their dependency. Make them get sober and get a job. It isn't societies responsibility to support meth heads and stoners.
If the host organisms are subject to drug tests......than so should the parasites/Paid Democrat Voters.
.
.
.
.
A rather stupid comment.
But this "idea" should be given consideration..
Drug use must NOT be a crime, however foolish it may be.
This Florida governor should discuss this with an addict or two, that is, if his mind is open...this I do not know....
A rather stupid comment.
But this "idea" should be given consideration..
Drug use must NOT be a crime, however foolish it may be.
This Florida governor should discuss this with an addict or two, that is, if his mind is open...this I do not know....
No. Marginalizing and trying to "starve out" addicts just creates more crime. Half the problem is that we have so few resources for addicts as it is, and the drug war culture makes people afraid to admit they have a problem, on top of the difficulty of dealing with it.
As offensive as it is to the mentality of people who would rather punish people for the audacity to be human, the exact opposite works much better: harm reduction programs. It increases the rates at which addicts go to rehab, and lowers crime.
I am not concerned with whether it serves some people's desire for vengeance. I'm only concerned with what works best.
In addition, a casual pot smoker is not any more an addict or inhibited from functioning than a casual drinker. There is absolutely no reason to discriminate against this sort of drug use (which is already perfectly acceptable in society as long as the drug has some totally arbitrary stamp of government approval). Marijuana lingers in your urine for up to a month, sometimes even longer if you're overweight. It lingers in hair for much longer, unless you shave it. Should someone who smoked a joint last month at their birthday party be thrown off benefit? Seriously?
My only issue here is that managing relationships with an addict are never cut and dry. Any action which promotes their access to their addiction enables them to continue, just like an action against the addiction is an easy excuse for them to continue using. Addicts are rarely successful in rehab programs they didn't enter voluntarily, and the relapse rate is quite high amongst the "successful". While disallowing them access to money to feed their addiction may lead to increased crime, the solution is not so easily identified.
I'm all for the legalization of marijuana. Studies indicate that use of other drugs declines significantly when marijuana is legal. But I'm not for subsidizing addiction for the sake of crime rates. A better solution is needed, though I'll be honest when I say I don't have one.
1/0
.
It is actually a great idea. There is a large faction of people that are on welfare because they can't get a job due to their dependency. Make them get sober and get a job. It isn't societies responsibility to support meth heads and stoners.
That's why harm reduction programs are awesome. They don't force the person into rehab. They work through creating awareness of resources and de-shaming the addiction.
Is it a cure-all? No. There is none. But at the end of the day, this would help them more, cost us less, and help reduce the damage it does to society.
Why not? They're already addicted. They're going to keep being addicted. At the end of the day it costs us less, and makes us safer, to deal with these people somehow rather than just hanging them up to dry.
There may be a better solution out there still. And what I've mentioned is probably incomplete. Is there any use for drug testing? Perhaps. How would we manage benefit vs. harm reduction or rehab? Not entirely sure. But I am fairly sure of this. Barring drug users from benefit is exactly the wrong move in my opinion.
No, your comment was:
From the link you posted it said that while 20% of welfare recipients have admitted to using illegal drugs in the past year, only a SMALL MINORITY satisfy the requirements for drug or alcohol dependency. So in the abstract of the link you gave, it's already saying the dependency numbers, to which you make a claim of LARGE FACTION OF PEOPLE ON WELFARE, is a SMALL MINORITY.
I don't know. I think even if we don't "hang them out to dry" there are benefits to knowing who is using drugs before we give them money. If a mother of 5 with a baby on the way tests positive for cocaine we can do infinitely more to help those kids than we could have if we'd just handed her a check.
Drug use must NOT be a crime, however foolish it may be.
Right, because people use drugs casually and that never shows up on a drug test:roll:
What's with the rolling eyes. You said LARGE FACTION. The link you gave, that report, says that the folk you're talking about is not a large faction, but a small minority.
You may want to actually read the stuff you post so you don't post something foolish.
Agreed. I'd rather see no drug tests than drug tests use to throw them back on the street, but I'd rather see what you mention than no drug tests. Although ideally we'd live in a culture where there was less shame and less harsh punishment and people were more likely to admit it.
What would we do with that information once we had it? Don't know. Our system is not currently built to be much help at all to addicts. Whatever it would be would have to be from scratch, but to me, this is a much better conversation to be having.
You may want read my post for comprehension. I said that a large faction uses drugs and that is 100% true.
It is actually a great idea. There is a large faction of people that are on welfare because they can't get a job due to their dependency. Make them get sober and get a job. It isn't societies responsibility to support meth heads and stoners.
And to be honest, I'm not sure what they would actually do for welfare-moms or dads who test positive for drugs..
My birth mom is an addict. When she was pregnant with my little brother we moved to Michigan, where she had to apply for Medicaid/WIC in order to receive prenatal care (which she neglected for 7 months of the pregnancy). During her first doctor's visit, she tested positive for drugs...a few, actually. She received a "warning" that further positive results would lead to consequences. Two positive tests later and she was placed on bed rest in the hospital, with monitored visits. She stayed there for the last month of the pregnancy (can't even imagine the cost!). At no point in time did they ever even look at the fact that she was a single mom and I was only 11, or provide information or resources for drug rehab. It's like plugging a hole in a boat with bubble gum, ya know?