• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabled

Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabled


  • Total voters
    33
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

Why not?

It's their body, their choice, right?

Yes, but they're our streets and we don't want dead junkies cluttering them up.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

Some addicts are self-medicating a pre-existing illness and then fall into the addiction as a secondary consequence. I think it would be fair to assess people who are detained to see if they qualify as mentally ill, and then go from there.

You can only give them so many chances before they continually neglect the system and waste resources. I just think it's unfortunate when the mentally ill get put in jail.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

Well...first of all, the entire premise of this thread is wrong....but who would have thought FoxNews might report false information?

Being a drug addict is not considered a "disability" under California law.

This is probably yet again another instance of Fauxnews twisting the facts.
There are probably a lot of homeless drug addicts that have mental illnesses that constitute a disability. But being a drug addict in and of itself is not considered a disability.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

I think anyone who entertains the idea to consider junkies as apart of the actual disabled is a complete idiot. People are disabled because of some unfortunate event that happened in their lives. A junkie destroys his/her body willingly there shouldn't even be a comparison.

An unfortunate event. Right. I consider skiing to be a really dangerous sport where one gambles with their life by going down a huge mountain. If somebody breaks their legs doing it then I don't think they should be considered disabled. Likewise you consider doing drugs to be an activity where one gambles with their life. Yet you don't consider those who end up in the worst situation related to drug use(addiction) to be considered disabled even though in both cases the individuals are taking risks with their lives. Why?
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

Well...first of all, the entire premise of this thread is wrong....but who would have thought FoxNews might report false information?

Being a drug addict is not considered a "disability" under California law.

This is probably yet again another instance of Fauxnews twisting the facts.
There are probably a lot of homeless drug addicts that have mental illnesses that constitute a disability. But being a drug addict in and of itself is not considered a disability.



"Alcoholism and/or drug addiction are recognized disabilities under the law."


Beverly Hills, California Disability Discrimination Lawyer :: Disability Discrimination (FEHA) :: Irvine, California Employment Law Attorney



prove this wrong.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

I think anyone who entertains the idea to consider junkies as apart of the actual disabled is a complete idiot. People are disabled because of some unfortunate event that happened in their lives. A junkie destroys his/her body willingly there shouldn't even be a comparison.

Hatuey has already pointed out the comparison with someone who becomes disabled from (for example) a ski accident which is also a question of choice.

I answered "maybe" because some people are born junkies - they may be addicts simply because their birth mother kept taking drugs during gestation. Do we insult these kids in the same black and white way everyone has insulted "junkies" on this thread too?

The world is not simply black and white with easy answers for every question out there I'm afraid.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

An unfortunate event. Right. I consider skiing to be a really dangerous sport where one gambles with their life by going down a huge mountain. If somebody breaks their legs doing it then I don't think they should be considered disabled. Likewise you consider doing drugs to be an activity where one gambles with their life. Yet you don't consider those who end up in the worst situation related to drug use(addiction) to be considered disabled even though in both cases the individuals are taking risks with their lives. Why?

People on drugs are more likely to vote for Democrats?
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

Hatuey has already pointed out the comparison with someone who becomes disabled from (for example) a ski accident which is also a question of choice.

I answered "maybe" because some people are born junkies - they may be addicts simply because their birth mother kept taking drugs during gestation. Do we insult these kids in the same black and white way everyone has insulted "junkies" on this thread too?

The world is not simply black and white with easy answers for every question out there I'm afraid.

The ultimate question pertaining to this thread is:

Should the general population be taxed to provide a living for disabled persons?

The answer options are:

Yes.
No.

The correct answer is: No.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

People on drugs are more likely to vote for Democrats?

Wow....alright Mr. Independent.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

--Should the general population be taxed to provide a living for disabled persons?

From what I've read, that psyche goes back as far as the American Revolution - historically Americans seem to dislike the idea of paying taxes more than most. It seems to form the root of republicanism and so has no real grounds in ideology.

That doesn't make your answer correct any more than a European or Oceanian nation that decides that nations are judged by how they treat the weakest members of society. You have your traditions - we have ours.

Your "correct answer" is no more correct than my "correct answer" which is that society has an obligation to ensure that the weakest (genuinely disabled) people are able to contribute to soceity with dignity and with equality.

You will no doubt attempt to rebutt by saying I am a Liberal or a Democrat or whatever - I am simply "not an American" and there are other opinions and voices in this world.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

From what I've read, that psyche goes back as far as the American Revolution - historically Americans seem to dislike the idea of paying taxes more than most. It seems to form the root of republicanism and so has no real grounds in ideology.

Untrue.

My obligations are defined by my choices and actions. If I'm not in any way responsible for the disability someone suffers, I'm not in any way liable for his care and support.

That socialist contract nonsense Rousseau babbled about? Bunk.

That doesn't make your answer correct any more than a European or Oceanian nation that decides that nations are judged by how they treat the weakest members of society. You have your traditions - we have ours.

No.

My answer respects the freedom of the individual to make choices in his life. That's the right way to do things.

The IngSoc traditions of Europe puts a gun in a man's face and says, "we most respectfully request your most compassionate consideration of support for this most unfortunate handicapped person."

That's just wrong. It's not "morally equivalent" to freedom, it's just wrong.

Your "correct answer" is no more correct than my "correct answer" which is that society has an obligation to ensure that the weakest (genuinely disabled) people are able to contribute to soceity with dignity and with equality.

No. Your answer is not correct, since it's dependent upon the use of violence, threats of violence, and other matters of coercion to compel compliance with the dictates of the mob.

You will no doubt attempt to rebutt by saying I am a Liberal or a Democrat or whatever - I am simply "not an American" and there are other opinions and voices in this world.

No. I just rebutted your argument by showing you where you're hiding the machine guns.

Extortion is never the right way to go.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights/protections as actual disabled people?


I saw a story on FOX news on how newport beach was enacting some ordinance to requiring drug treatment homes/sober homes to file for permits and they mentioned that in California that junkies are considered disabled.

I say hell no,junkies should not be considered disabled, willfully taking an addictive substance should not get you disabled status.Even if you are no longer a junky you still should not be considered disabled. If a employer does not want to hire someone with a drug habit or who has had a drug habit then that is the employer's business.junky

Absolutely not! Ship all drugies and habitual law breakers to an island off the mainland.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

From what I've read, that psyche goes back as far as the American Revolution - historically Americans seem to dislike the idea of paying taxes more than most. It seems to form the root of republicanism and so has no real grounds in ideology.

That doesn't make your answer correct any more than a European or Oceanian nation that decides that nations are judged by how they treat the weakest members of society. You have your traditions - we have ours.

Your "correct answer" is no more correct than my "correct answer" which is that society has an obligation to ensure that the weakest (genuinely disabled) people are able to contribute to soceity with dignity and with equality.

You will no doubt attempt to rebutt by saying I am a Liberal or a Democrat or whatever - I am simply "not an American" and there are other opinions and voices in this world.

I receive the same flack on here for my views on socialized systems, and people don't care that I'm Canadian, nor you European. All they care about is their own status quo... I wish people could try to step outside of their own cultural values for a moment, but in order to do that, they would have to realize that being so adamently against socialized anything is a cultural value. The first hurdle has not yet been accomplished.

I understood your point and it was well said.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

-- I wish people could try to step outside of their own cultural values for a moment, but in order to do that, they would have to realize that being so adamently against socialized anything is a cultural value--

That is sometimes a question of time - but sometimes also of pointing out conflicting stances that some posters will have.

Take this statement below for example..

"The ultimate question pertaining to this thread is:

Should the general population be taxed to provide a living for disabled persons?

The answer options are:

Yes.
No.

The correct answer is: No."


Would you believe that same person who does not believe in his/her contributions going to support others who may be disabled would also support his or her taxes paying directly or indirectly for wounded troops of his or her own country?

And I'll bet you he/she doesn't even see the conflict! :lol:
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

That is sometimes a question of time - but sometimes also of pointing out conflicting stances that some posters will have.

Take this statement below for example..

"The ultimate question pertaining to this thread is:

Should the general population be taxed to provide a living for disabled persons?

The answer options are:

Yes.
No.

The correct answer is: No."


Would you believe that same person who does not believe in his/her contributions going to support others who may be disabled would also support his or her taxes paying directly or indirectly for wounded troops of his or her own country?

And I'll bet you he/she doesn't even see the conflict! :lol:


That's because there isn't any conflict.

The average disabled person didn't ask my permission to become disabled, nor did I award him any contracts promising him medical care if he was injured in the performance of some service for me.

The soldier wounded on the battlefield is serving my needs and is under contract awarding him medical care for the injuries he receives for his service.

You can't see the difference.

Doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

I receive the same flack on here for my views on socialized systems, and people don't care that I'm Canadian, nor you European. All they care about is their own status quo... I wish people could try to step outside of their own cultural values for a moment, but in order to do that, they would have to realize that being so adamently against socialized anything is a cultural value. The first hurdle has not yet been accomplished.

I understood your point and it was well said.

Yes. Being opposed to socialism and other forms of slavery is a cultural value.

The key word being "value".

Socialism doesn't have any value to a free man.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

--The soldier wounded on the battlefield is serving my needs and is under contract awarding him medical care for the injuries he receives for his service --

And who pays for the wounded miltary man's medical care?

The martians? :lol:
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

And who pays for the wounded miltary man's medical care?

The martians? :lol:


Yeah, like I said, you refused to see the difference.

The difference isn't in the "who pays", the difference is in the "what did they do to earn the obligation".

Your generic civillian cripple didn't perform any service for the general welfare and therefore has not earned any benefits to be paid by the general population.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

The difference isn't in the "who pays", the difference is in the "what did they do to earn the obligation".

Do you want me to quote your own words a few posts ago on this thread again?
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

Do you want me to quote your own words a few posts ago on this thread again?

Do you want me to name any of a number of other things you can do for me while you're busy not responding to my post?
 
Last edited:
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

I responded, I'm waiting till you understand the hypocrisy in your position.
 
Re: Should junkies be considered disabled and afforded the same rights as real disabl

As someone who has both a junkie in his immediate family as well as a truly disabled person, I vote "no".

What the junkie deals with is nowhere near on par with what a truly disabled person deals with.


P.S. Scarecrow, the disabled person in my family has most likely paid far more in taxes in his lifetime than most of the whiners who bitch about their typically meager tax dollars going towards helping the disabled. His life savings were completely wiped out because of astronomical medical costs associated with being in the hospital for 9 months after his accident. While he had insurance, but they have caps, and the money disappears very, very fast when you are in the ICU.

But when you've paid out over 100K per year in taxes over a 15-20 year span a measly 20K per year in assistance over the same time span ain't really "unfair".
 
Back
Top Bottom