|
On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote:
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
You mean like the currently available drug programs for people in these situations ? Or would there be "additional" programs for these people specifically. How would these new programs be any different than the ones already existing, but they chose not to use ?
|
On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote:
People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side.
I agree. This is bad legislation but it doesn't surprise me coming from such a conservative state.
|
On June 10 2011 10:01 huameng wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:39 Mormagil wrote:
I'm really confused why this is even a debate. Using the kind of drugs they are testing for is illegal. People who do illegal things are tried and sent to jail. Nobody has a problem with this. Why, then, do people think it is a good idea to give these same people tax dollars?
I feel like it is a choice. If you feel like you want to do drugs, fine. More power to you, that's your life. However, it is against the law. You can't pick and chose which laws you want to have and which you want to break. You can't chose to go against the government on drugs and then go crying to the government for money. Just not how it works. I believe that people who break the law should still be able to eat well, be sheltered, etc. Does anyone have a problem with this? Cause if not, then we still have to give people who did drugs a few days ago their welfare check, right? If we don't, there will be people who can't do those things that I, and many others, believe everyone should be able to do. Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 10:01 Nizaris wrote:On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote:
People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side. Clearly you don't understand it either. "Addiction" doesn't make you dumb. Like i said idiots will fail, the rest will buy clean piss on craigslist. A) Why did you put addiction in quotes? B) Why is it ok that idiots fail? Should we not care if idiots are starving on the streets?
A) because many ppl consume drugs without being addicted.
B) Its not ok. i think this resolution is idiotic and doesn't fix anything. only thing it does is:
1. Waste tax payers dollars
2. Takes away civil liberties
Another reason why piss tests are dumb? The more synthetic the drug is the faster it is eliminated from your system. That mean piss tests can't detect heroin/cocain users at all if they can stop 48h prior of the test. Weed on the other hand being natural stays in your system for months. Morale of the story? if you wanna get high while on welfare, do hard drugs.
If anything they should take away your benefits if they detect alcohol or caffeine in your system too. Shit's worse for your health the half of the illegal stuff.
|
On June 10 2011 08:48 ewswes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote:On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote:
the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_- Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument? do you see the flaw in yours? using drugs != the mafia. one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
You missed the analogy entirely. FFGenerations suggested that we should not deny drug users welfare or they will commit crimes to pay for their drug habits. By the same logic, we should bribe all armed robbers so that they don't have to commit robberies.
On June 10 2011 08:49 FFGenerations wrote:no im pointing out the REALITY of the situation
The reality of the situation is that giving people money so that they don't commit crimes is a terribad way to go about it. What we should be doing is spending that money on a combination of drug counseling, rehab, education and vocational training, and law enforcement.
Giving drug addicts money is just an (expensive) band-aid that amounts to appeasement.
|
On June 10 2011 10:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:48 ewswes wrote:On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote:On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote:
the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_- Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument? do you see the flaw in yours? using drugs != the mafia. one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization.. You missed the analogy entirely. FFGenerations suggested that we should not deny drug users welfare or they will commit crimes to pay for their drug habits. By the same logic, we should bribe all armed robbers so that they don't have to commit robberies.
The problem with your original point is that it's ridiculous to say mafia members HAVE to commit crimes, since the alternative is a normal life. But for people on welfare, if you don't give them money, the alternative is begging on the streets, (or worse) which makes it more reasonable to say that they HAVE to commit crimes.
If someone has to choose between committing a crime and sleeping on the streets with an empty stomach, then it makes perfect sense to give them money to eat and find a place to live, since people have a right to those basic necessities, and the only way they will get them is if they are given money.
I agree that the guy you quoted did miss the point, though.
EDIT:
The reality of the situation is that giving people money so that they don't commit crimes is a terribad way to go about it. What we should be doing is spending that money on a combination of drug counseling, rehab, education and vocational training, and law enforcement.
Giving drug addicts money is just an (expensive) band-aid that amounts to appeasement.
Yeah, those are good options too, but they aren't on the table right now. We have to choose between giving them money and giving them nothing. Rick Scott sure as hell isn't gonna pay for rehab, he doesn't even want to pay for food!
Nizaris: I think you are totally right btw.
|
On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:The problem with your original point is that it's ridiculous to say mafia members HAVE to commit crimes, since the alternative is a normal life. But for people on welfare, if you don't give them money, the alternative is begging on the streets, (or worse) which makes it more reasonable to say that they HAVE to commit crimes.
Most people turn to a life of (street) crime in the first place because they have few better options for socio-economic security. The fact that some people at the top make it big and live comfortably if they go legit doesn't change the fact that most criminals have little alternatives. There was a study done at the University of Chicago that revealed that most criminals make the equivalent of minimum wage or less (hence why many younger criminals live with their parents), and only the people at the top do well.
So yes, in many cases, street criminals do commit crime out of necessity. This is why street crime is strongly correlated with poverty.
On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:If someone has to choose between committing a crime and sleeping on the streets with an empty stomach, then it makes perfect sense to give them money to eat and find a place to live, since people have a right to those basic necessities, and the only way they will get them is if they are given money.
It makes much better sense to give them food and a place to live, but not money that they frequently choose to spend on drugs instead of their basic necessities.
It also makes sense to force people into going to shelters/rehabilitation centers to meet their needs rather than recieving checks they can spend on whatever, since the former increases the chance that someone can talk to them and help them start a path to getting off drugs.
On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:Yeah, those are good options too, but they aren't on the table right now. We have to choose between giving them money and giving them nothing. Rick Scott sure as hell isn't gonna pay for rehab, he doesn't even want to pay for food!
They do exist in various forms, but drug addicts don't utilize them, primarily because they don't have to. If you can get the money you need for drugs from welfare, why go to a rehab center for food, shelter, and drug counseling?
Take away the welfare option, and while some people might choose crime, others will be incentivized towards reform.
|
Not sure how you think this is guilty before proven innocent, unless your trying to say everybody on welfare is on drugs.
|
On June 10 2011 08:48 ewswes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:45 sunprince wrote:On June 10 2011 08:43 FFGenerations wrote:
the whole point is if you deny hard drug users wellfare for their basical survival , then they are realistically going to start committing crimes Oh? Why don't we give the mafia free money too? That way, they won't have to commit crimes. -_- Are you trolling, or do you seriously not see the logical flaw in your argument? do you see the flaw in yours? using drugs != the mafia. one is a victimless crime, the other is a criminal organization..
Confident that drugs create many victims. Both the users, their families and friends/people around them are all affected. Drugs also travel through criminal organizations, and many people join them to make their substance abuse affordable.
|
yeah, let's cut off drug addicts from any sort of financial help. That will help them to sort their lives out! great idea!
|
On June 10 2011 10:40 matjlav wrote:
yeah, let's cut off drug addicts from any sort of financial help. That will help them to sort their lives out! great idea!
Cutting off the financial support for their addiction is a start, though.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina114 Posts
On June 10 2011 11:04 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 10:40 matjlav wrote:
yeah, let's cut off drug addicts from any sort of financial help. That will help them to sort their lives out! great idea! Cutting off the financial support for their addiction is a start, though.
The idea sounds good, but we should never ever think it's a good thing if the government regulates lives of private people.
Note that inherent human's desire for consuming fats in their diet can also be construed as 'addiction'.
Why not?
Your cholesterol is above an arbitrarily set number - no welfare check for you.
You smoke - no welfare.
You eat sugar? OMFG, GTFO!
|
This is a bad idea, at best. It will accomplish all of two things:
a) A very small number of recreational drug users will clean their act up and switch to other substances.
b) The other welfare recipients, from your average joe unemployed who smokes a joint a day to the serious hard drug addicts, will find themselves with no money. Ask the people that live in downtown Vancouver what crackheads do for their next fix. It's not as if welfare was already paying for all of their drug use before though, they'll just work a bit more on the black market or smash for car windows to steal change.
But what happens when kids are involved ? No money either ?
Robert K. Merton will probably be saying "I told you so" from the grave once the crime rates rise.
|
On June 10 2011 12:21 greendestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 11:04 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 10:40 matjlav wrote:
yeah, let's cut off drug addicts from any sort of financial help. That will help them to sort their lives out! great idea! Cutting off the financial support for their addiction is a start, though. The idea sounds good, but we should never ever think it's a good thing if the government regulates lives of private people. Note that inherent human's desire for consuming fats in their diet can also be construed as 'addiction'. Why not? Your cholesterol is above an arbitrarily set number - no welfare check for you. You smoke - no welfare. You eat sugar? OMFG, GTFO!
If you think thats taking away their civil liberties you are 100% wrong, They are receiving money from the government and tax payers money. The government has every right to regulate who receives it, you don't like it stop getting welfare.
|
On June 10 2011 10:02 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote:
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
You mean like the currently available drug programs for people in these situations ? Or would there be "additional" programs for these people specifically. How would these new programs be any different than the ones already existing, but they chose not to use ?
You do know how hard it is for your average drug addict to have access to those ressources right ? It's not as if they are ALREADY underfunded and understaffed or anything.
|
On June 10 2011 10:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:The problem with your original point is that it's ridiculous to say mafia members HAVE to commit crimes, since the alternative is a normal life. But for people on welfare, if you don't give them money, the alternative is begging on the streets, (or worse) which makes it more reasonable to say that they HAVE to commit crimes. Most people turn to a life of (street) crime in the first place because they have few better options for socio-economic security. The fact that some people at the top make it big and live comfortably if they go legit doesn't change the fact that most criminals have little alternatives. There was a study done at the University of Chicago that revealed that most criminals make the equivalent of minimum wage or less (hence why many younger criminals live with their parents), and only the people at the top do well. So yes, in many cases, street criminals do commit crime out of necessity. This is why street crime is strongly correlated with poverty.
Yes, I thought you were trying to exclude the kind of street criminal who is committing crimes out of necessity when you brought up mafia members. I was trying to argue that street criminals commit crime out of necessity; my bad if you interpreted it some other way. And I believe that a solution to this is to keep giving them welfare, even if they use drugs!
Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:If someone has to choose between committing a crime and sleeping on the streets with an empty stomach, then it makes perfect sense to give them money to eat and find a place to live, since people have a right to those basic necessities, and the only way they will get them is if they are given money. It makes much better sense to give them food and a place to live, but not money that they frequently choose to spend on drugs instead of their basic necessities. It also makes sense to force people into going to shelters/rehabilitation centers to meet their needs rather than recieving checks they can spend on whatever, since the former increases the chance that someone can talk to them and help them start a path to getting off drugs. Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 10:15 huameng wrote:Yeah, those are good options too, but they aren't on the table right now. We have to choose between giving them money and giving them nothing. Rick Scott sure as hell isn't gonna pay for rehab, he doesn't even want to pay for food! They do exist in various forms, but drug addicts don't utilize them, primarily because they don't have to. If you can get the money you need for drugs from welfare, why go to a rehab center for food, shelter, and drug counseling? Take away the welfare option, and while some people might choose crime, others will be incentivized towards reform.
Why should we incentivize these people to stop doing drugs by making their lives so shitty they have no other choice? If they think a drug addicted life on welfare is better than going to rehab, I find it hard to believe the problem is that the drug addicted life on welfare is too good, and that we should take away the welfare! I think approaching the problem like this will make it a lot harder to solve, but a lot more rewarding and with a much better long term prognosis.
|
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Yes, I thought you were trying to exclude the kind of street criminal who is committing crimes out of necessity when you brought up mafia members. I was trying to argue that street criminals commit crime out of necessity; my bad if you interpreted it some other way. And I believe that a solution to this is to keep giving them welfare, even if they use drugs!
I'd propose the solution that anyone who cannot pass a drug test be provided access to centers where they can get food, shelter, clothing, drug counseling, etc.
No cash unless you can pass a drug test. Sound reasonable?
On June 10 2011 12:34 huameng wrote:Why should we incentivize these people to stop doing drugs by making their lives so shitty they have no other choice? If they think a drug addicted life on welfare is better than going to rehab, I find it hard to believe the problem is that the drug addicted life on welfare is too good, and that we should take away the welfare! I think approaching the problem like this will make it a lot harder to solve, but a lot more rewarding and with a much better long term prognosis.
I don't think they consider the drug addicted life on welfare "too good", but apparently, it's "good enough" that they are willing to continue it.
|
This isn't a legal criminal case, it's a way to ensure that taxpayer money isn't being wasted on drugs. I'm all for wasting less taxpayer money, we need to start cutting back, and this is just a start.
|
I have to take a drug test to get a job, why should they not have to take one to recieve welfare?
|
On June 10 2011 12:21 greendestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 11:04 Kaitlin wrote:On June 10 2011 10:40 matjlav wrote:
yeah, let's cut off drug addicts from any sort of financial help. That will help them to sort their lives out! great idea! Cutting off the financial support for their addiction is a start, though. The idea sounds good, but we should never ever think it's a good thing if the government regulates lives of private people.
They aren't regulating lives of private people, they are regulating the use of taxpayer money so it is not spent on illegal drug use. I don't think there's any problems in that.
|
On June 10 2011 10:02 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 09:55 LtLolburger wrote:
People don't understand addiction. What I predict happening; many many people will test positive for drugs and be denied the benefit. They are then forced into crime / homelessness to continue their drug habbit and to just live. Taxpayer money is now shunted towards repairing damage done by crime and medical expenses. Nice job.
What would be an intelligent solution is to offer free rehabilitation and assistance to those addicted to drugs who are caught in these tests, rather than casting them on the streets to start robbing convenience stores and stealing cars.
Its all very well and good to be self righteous about drug use. But its not as clear cut and simple as "only criminals / bad people do drugs". Its societies problem to prevent it from happening in the first place and to HELP those who are addicted. Many addicts feel trapped in their situation; "well If i seek help I will go to prison / lose my job and house" etc. This kind of legislation is just conservative morons wanting to sweep the problem under the rug, only for it to push out the other side. I agree. This is bad legislation but it doesn't surprise me coming from such a conservative state.
So you think just throwing money at people with drug problems is going to help reduce drug proliferation and drug related crime?
Better save that money for drug awareness and/or rehabilitation programs rather than just giving money to drug addicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
