• 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!

How Can We Help Drug Addicts & Users?

How Can We Help Drug Addicts & Users?

  • Put them in Jail, Bankrupt them, Slave them, and take there Educations away, like it is now.

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • Leave Drug Addicts Alone & No More Drug Testing for Jobs

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • Help Them Get Treatment & No More Drug Testing for Jobs

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • Other Helpful Ideas

    Votes: 12 48.0%
  • None

    Votes: 5 20.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
Why do drug users need help? I can understand addicts needing assistance.
 
Employers should be able to drug-test their employers for whatever reason they want. Don't like it, don't take the job.
i can't believe i agree with this, but i do.
 
It's really difficult to help any addict until he realizes he needs help and actively seeks it. This often seems to happen when the addict encounters a brick wall in his/her life. I'm all for helping those who actually want it and seek it of their own volition, but otherwise, it's a waste of resources and emotional energy to worry about it.
 
I love how biased the poll is, just what we expect from libertarians. The only choices given are "enslave and abuse them" or "make it easier for them to get and use drugs. :roll:

It's really not that difficult, although as others have said, drug users have to want to get themselves off drugs, it cannot be imposed upon them by fiat. I don't think users (as opposed to dealers and distributors) ought to be in prison at all. They ought to be in in-patient drug treatment programs, paid for by an actual "war on drugs", not the namby-pamby media campaign on drugs we have now. If our goal is the actual eradication of drugs, we're going about it all wrong at the moment. The government just wants us to think they're doing something while all along, they're just making a lot of vague gestures and comforting noises and not actually accomplishing a damn thing.
 
Private Employers? Maybe. Others? Not so much. I feel it is a tread on civil rights.

There is no civil right to take illegal drugs, sorry.
 
Where is the option for jailing them for breaking the law and then sending them to a rehab to help them kick dangerous and illegal habits? That's where my vote lies.
 
Sounds a little big brother/big government.

Why should an employer have any business knowing the private lives of an employee as long as it doesn't affect their job?

Base employment of job performance, not on big brother snooping into private lives.

Well, that kinda depends.

Want a drunk running a crane?

How about a methhead inspecting the parts put into the airplane you'll be flying next week?

Should a pothead's "rights" be more important than the employer who's expecting him to be able to scan your biopsy for cancer cells carefully?

I agree that someone's drug habit off-hours isn't relevant, unless there's evidence that such use impacts the job.
 
Where is the option for jailing them for breaking the law and then sending them to a rehab to help them kick dangerous and illegal habits? That's where my vote lies.

If I regularly smoke pot, is that a "dangerous" habit?
 
There is no civil right to take illegal drugs, sorry.

Exactly. A lot of people confuse rights with privileges. There is a huge difference. But, as far as privileges go, I don't see how drug use could be described as one. It is truly hell, and I wouldn't wish that privilege, or right, if someone wants to call it that, on anyone.
 
I agree that someone's drug habit off-hours isn't relevant, unless there's evidence that such use impacts the job.

Thats EXACTLY what I am saying. If there is evidence that it impacts the job, the employer should have every right to fire them.
If there is nothing evidencing impact on the job, an employer has no right delving into the private lives of its employees. You don't surrender your entire life to an employer as a condition of employment.
 
Thats EXACTLY what I am saying. If there is evidence that it impacts the job, the employer should have every right to fire them.

Then the employer has to be able to test for drug use.

Oh.

I get it.

You want the part in your airplane to FAIL first, and then the FAA can determine that it wrongly passed inspection because the inspector was doing Extacy and didn't notice it.

Good plan.

After all, the lives of potentially thousands are at stake, yet you don't want the employer ensuring his employees are sober.

If there is nothing evidencing impact on the job, an employer has no right delving into the private lives of its employees. You don't surrender your entire life to an employer as a condition of employment.

Here's a hint: It ain't the employee's job, it's the employer's job, and if the employer wants to accept the expense of random drug testing as a requirement for certain jobs, that's his business. The employee that doesn't like this has every freedom to find an altnerative occupation.

So many socialists can't figure out this simple fact.
 
Exactly. A lot of people confuse rights with privileges. There is a huge difference. But, as far as privileges go, I don't see how drug use could be described as one. It is truly hell, and I wouldn't wish that privilege, or right, if someone wants to call it that, on anyone.

The right is the ability to make your own choices and be damned to public opinion, you'll take the consequences.

It's called "freedom".
 
If I regularly smoke pot, is that a "dangerous" habit?

Not all drugs are equal. Marijuana is not as bad as heroine or most other drugs. However, I don't think cannabis use is a good thing (just like smoking isn't good in the health sense either). I wouldn't say it's dangerous if done privately outside of work and when you aren't planning on driving. Again, not all drugs are equal, marijuana shouldn't have the same status as cocaine, heroine, LCD, and other drugs.
 
The right is the ability to make your own choices and be damned to public opinion, you'll take the consequences.

It's called "freedom".

Freedom rarely comes without responsibility or consequence. You can take the drugs but there may be unintended consequences, such as losing your job or going to jail. Just because you're free doesn't mean you're free from responsibility.
 
Freedom rarely comes without responsibility or consequence. You can take the drugs but there may be unintended consequences, such as losing your job or going to jail. Just because you're free doesn't mean you're free from responsibility.

There ya go.

Losing the job? That's the boss's job, drug should not be banned because employers fire drug users, nor should employers be restrained from firing drug users.

Going to jail? Should only happen when the crime either hurts someone or is universally recognized as having such a high probability of causing harm that the act itself is punished to deter the behavior, such as driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The mere possession of a substance, no matter how much, should not be a matter for the police...

...with one caveat, namely that since it's in society's best interest to keep drugs away from children, sellers must be licensed and registered, as are tobacco and alcohol outlets.
 
CaptainCourtesy, Why do you feel that Welfare recipients should have to submit to drug testing? Don't you think that is kind of unfair considering everybody else in the U.S.A. is not forced to do it?

Seems a tad discriminatory to me since everybody in this country benefits from some sort of social program(s) so why single welfare folks out?

And random drug screenings at school with suspicion? You gotta be kidding me? What a nice way to get teen drop-outs.

Any crime committed while intoxicated receives DOUBLE the consequences? Walk all over a persons rights! OMG!
 
Last edited:
Usually the reason why employers drug test is that it gets them a better insurance rate. I am against the war on drugs. I think that you own you and thus you ought to be able to do whatever you want with your own body, but I am not sure how its fair to tell an employer that they have to pay higher insurance rates because they can no longer drug test their employees.

Then take this up with the insurance folks! Do not punish hard working people who happen to get high now and again.
 
Not all drugs are equal. Marijuana is not as bad as heroine or most other drugs. However, I don't think cannabis use is a good thing (just like smoking isn't good in the health sense either). I wouldn't say it's dangerous if done privately outside of work and when you aren't planning on driving. Again, not all drugs are equal, marijuana shouldn't have the same status as cocaine, heroine, LCD, and other drugs.

Cigs are harder to quit than heroine but they are legal. That should tell ya something. :roll:
 
If I regularly smoke pot, is that a "dangerous" habit?

Could be. Depends on if you are addicted and the additional behaviors that may go along with your use.
 
CaptainCourtesy, Why do you feel that Welfare recipients should have to submit to drug testing? Don't you think that is kind of unfair considering everybody else in the U.S.A. is not forced to do it?

Seems a tad discriminatory to me since everybody in this country benefits from some sort of social program(s) so why single welfare folks out?

It's more of a start. As far as I'm concerned, I strongly support governmental social programs to help the needy... however, I do not support those being helped NOT doing something to help themselves. Using governmental money for food, shelter, clothing, and to improve their lives so that they no longer need government assistance would be far less possible if they are using the governments money for drugs... currently illegal, anyway. As far as I'm concerned, if one wants help, one must be willing to help themselves, also.

And random drug screenings at school with suspicion? You gotta be kidding me? What a nice way to get teen drop-outs.

Or a great way to get kids who are heading down an addictive path to getting some help. This already occurs in a lot of the schools I deal with.

Any crime committed while intoxicated receives DOUBLE the consequences? Walk all over a persons rights! OMG!

With the plan that I outlined, and the fact that a majority (as far as I can recall) of major crimes involve some sort of intoxication/drugs/alcohol, this seems to be a reasonable deterrent towards someone getting help.
 
Cigs are harder to quit than heroine but they are legal. That should tell ya something. :roll:

How different are the reactions to an "overdose" of cigarettes to an overdose of heroin? That should tell you something, too. ;)
 
Having my pee or strain of hair is not someone elses right either. ;)

Nope, but if you don't want to provide it, you can go look for a job elsewhere. If nobody wants to hire you without a drug test, you can starve. Simple, huh?
 
Not all drugs are equal. Marijuana is not as bad as heroine or most other drugs. However, I don't think cannabis use is a good thing (just like smoking isn't good in the health sense either). I wouldn't say it's dangerous if done privately outside of work and when you aren't planning on driving. Again, not all drugs are equal, marijuana shouldn't have the same status as cocaine, heroine, LCD, and other drugs.

I think you mean LSD, not LCD. Well then let us take two Schedule 1 drugs as an example. How is LSD as dangerous as methamphetamine? And if it is not, how does the government justify categorizing them in the same category?
 
Could be. Depends on if you are addicted and the additional behaviors that may go along with your use.

I think the issue is that terms like "dangerous" are relative. I think everyone has their own definition of what "dangerous" means to them. For example, some people consider keeping a gun in the home a danger. Others think it makes them safer.
 
Back
Top Bottom