|
On January 16 2014 00:59 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 15:51 Zooper31 wrote:On January 15 2014 08:53 hunts wrote:On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do. So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping. So because you can't deny the minority of people who do drugs from getting assistance in feeding themselves and their children, you'd rather deny EVERYONE even those in need who have jobs and are good people in need of a little help instead and make their children starve. Because what's worse than a drug addict getting free food? A child being denied food because her parents did nothing wrong at all and are on hard times. Please read what I said before jumping in with your sensationalist absurd statements. I said drug addicts should not get tax money to fuel their addiction because they are a drain on society and will never be of use to it. I never mentioned anyone other than drug users. I am very much for government assistance for people who actually work or are looking for work, or in some way contribute to society. These drug users who sit on welfare however, contribute nothing to society and paying for them is a drain on society.
LOL, how about cure the drugs addict so they can help society, you talk like they should just die, what you do for society YOU?? do we need you that much??
just because you got a normal job you are wortly for the society ? you know they are 20 people behind you who could better that you and you just take them the place?
so ??
|
lol this kind of policy is ...... sad.
it is a known fact that poverty leads to social environnement in which people are more expose to drug use.
example to support this fact : Hobos, probably living in third world health condition (population most hit with tuberculosis - in occident- , along with natives but that's another story) are for the most part drug addicts.
this kind of policy will then, remove alot of people their rights to recieve social services, plus who is the state to tell you what not to buy with YOUR money, that's liberty violation right there. are we just gonna let these people die of hunger?
how is it fair, when we know that wallstreet is all over cocain but we don't go tell them what to do with their money.
those who think that this public welfare money is only gonna sink into poachers' pockets, think again. public money that is lost in fiscal evasion (by our wallstreet folks), political corruption, war, in much more important dollarwise. if it is true that it is "lost money, these people will still manage to buy their drug AND feed.
long story short, poverty, drug use, increasing every year in USA is the mirror of society's biggest illnest : capitalism.
peace bros
|
To be fair, illicit drug use in the United States has been declining over the past 20 years. If you consider all other drugs besides marijuana, the decline is even greater across all age groups. However, licit drugs and prescription drug abuse has only increased.
And as an aside, Rick Scott transferred ownership of Solantic, his drug testing company (valued at over $60 million with 32 locations in Florida as of 2 years ago) to his wife..So clearly, huge conflict of interest there and should have raised a lot more ethical questions for personal profit.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 15 2014 08:53 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do. So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping.
You're making several leaps of logic, the foremost of which is that a person who uses drugs and is on welfare can't contribute to society. There's all sorts of drug abuse, and I haven't seen it proven that most abusers can't hold down minimum wage jobs (just a note: even holding a minimum wage job will put you in the welfare bracket.)
Second is the assumption that a sizable portion of welfare recipients do drugs. This is not proven either.
Now, if the fundamental issue is using tax payers' money to pay people that use drugs and that issue is so repugnant to you, then I have an idea that'll really put pressure on them and take care of tax payers' money.
We should drug test (including marijuana) for student loans. And home mortgage interest deductions. And charitable contributions, tax credits, etc.
+ Show Spoiler +The truth of the matter is that something like 96% of Americans receive money from government social programs and a whole lot of them are drug users. But only one group in particular gets constantly demonized, and it's the group least able to defend themselves.
When Nancy Reagan was peddling her terrible anti-drug campaigns in the 80's, do you think the bankers and investors on Wall St. were ever at risk, given the widespread drug abuse?
|
The biggest welfare queens, the politicians, are never included in their own drug testing bills. Should always start with the people proposing laws on the rest of the population.
|
On January 16 2014 01:08 quebecman77 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2014 00:59 hunts wrote:On January 15 2014 15:51 Zooper31 wrote:On January 15 2014 08:53 hunts wrote:On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do. So they should use tax payer money to sit around and do drugs and be a drain on society? That's a childish and cruel thing to do to tax payers, to force them to pay for someone who will never be of use to society who will simply sit around and do illegal drugs and never work on getting any sort of job. Unfortunately yes, implementing a system of defamatory drug screening for welfare does cost more than letting the drug users sit on it, so the system is then not worth keeping. So because you can't deny the minority of people who do drugs from getting assistance in feeding themselves and their children, you'd rather deny EVERYONE even those in need who have jobs and are good people in need of a little help instead and make their children starve. Because what's worse than a drug addict getting free food? A child being denied food because her parents did nothing wrong at all and are on hard times. Please read what I said before jumping in with your sensationalist absurd statements. I said drug addicts should not get tax money to fuel their addiction because they are a drain on society and will never be of use to it. I never mentioned anyone other than drug users. I am very much for government assistance for people who actually work or are looking for work, or in some way contribute to society. These drug users who sit on welfare however, contribute nothing to society and paying for them is a drain on society. LOL, how about cure the drugs addict so they can help society, you talk like they should just die, what you do for society YOU?? do we need you that much?? just because you got a normal job you are wortly for the society ? you know they are 20 people behind you who could better that you and you just take them the place? so ??
I agree with this sentiment. There are way too many people acting like they're so good for society just because they have normal jobs, despite some of the views they may spout. Such views are only going to take away from civilised society.
I don't care if someone is a receptionist, office worker, IT help desk, high-up IT tech guru, lawyer, banker, marketing advisor, hotel manager or some CEO of a company, you are unlikely to be doing good for everyone and in reality, most people are only doing their jobs for themselves, for their own profit. People further their careers and aim for higher income for the same reason.
One is not likely to directly "contribute to society" by climbing the corporate ladder, nor by doing the mundane lower work.
One could make a case for certain jobs, doctors for example*, but in general, people need to drop that attitude. I find it especially surprising that it still occurs since the global financial crisis, when so many highly skilled people find themselves struggling to find jobs or else taking far lower paying jobs while others fortunate enough to have just that much more experience, connections or just a solid grounding with that company make complaints about how a small portion of their money is being given away to sustain many many other lives.
Selfish bastards, stop ya whingin'!
That's my take on it, anyway. :Þ
*+ Show Spoiler +...except that the last time I had to go to hospital, they nearly failed in their key motto of "Do no harm" (or whatever it is) by sending me home with antibiotics "just in case"...antibiotics that I am allergic to, which I had made very clear to both the main doctor and main nurse tending to me.
It's not like the front of the packet clearly advertised what it contained! You have to check the back to read what it contains, to find out that they might just be trying to kill you...
Also, hunts might have an explanation other than expecting them to die, but he hasn't given it yet and yes, I agree he sounds pretty merciless and/or uncaring.
I agree on the ideal of "not wasting their money on those who just use it for continued drug abuse" but you can't just take it away either. Idealism and realism: One must maintain some of each, seeking the first where possible but maintaining perspective of where it is less than practical. We shouldn't stray too far from ideals though.
Letting people die because "well fuck 'em" is too far from ideals.
|
What an interesting thing to do, Florida.
Violate people's privacy and spend public money in order to be a morality police while also wasting the time of medical professionals. If people are found having used drugs while being on welfare, it costs even more money to the state and everybody loses. Thumbs up, great success.
|
On January 15 2014 15:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2014 06:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance. This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see. Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about. I am totally confused as to how you guys look at the statistics of less people having more wealth, and the avg/min wage buying less now than it did in 1950 and say that everyone is getting richer. The closest article I found supporting the insane idea that everyone is getting richer and at little to no cost to the poor but it pretty much just shows why such a viewpoint is totally nonsensical. "The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows." That means instead of the top 1% getting a raise they could of DOUBLED the entire annual income of the bottom 20% of ALL Americans without losing a nickel compared to previous years. So you mean to say 1% of Americans 'earning' a RAISE equal to the entire annual income of 20% American workers didn't come at the 20%'s expense who saw no real wage increase? American workers are more productive than they have been in decades but getting paid less than they used to, and executives salaries have been growing further and further away from their average workers salary. This is indisputable evidence that it has come at a cost to the poorest among us and even well up into the bottom 80% of income earners in America. If you can't understand that than I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. One of a million supporting sources None of that shows that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor. Again, to claim that there has been a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich reveals either dishonesty. ignorance, or confusion. You want a country where the rich actually have gotten richer at the expense of the poor, look at Russia. It beggars belief that the rich increasing their income has somehow caused the inflation that is the reason that a dollar buys less today than it did in 1950 or 1960. There's a leap of evidence and logic there, just as there is in the use of the contention that "the top 1% increased their wealth as much as the bottom 20% earns entirely," which in no way proves that the increase in wealth was "transferred" or taken from the bottom 20% to the top 1%. If we accept the assumption that if this income did not go to the top 1% it would have gone to the bottom 20% then certainly, but there is no actual reason to think that that would have been the case. The CBO data shows that from 1979 - 2007 incomes for the poor rose 18%, the middle class 40%, the top 81-99% rose 65%, and the top 1% rose 275%. Even if you think that is terribly out of whack and prefer to ignore that by any material measure the poor have risen farther than that 18% suggests, it still cannot possibly constitute the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. The poverty rate has fallen from 26% in 1968 to 16% now. How is that possible if the rich have been getting richer at the expense of the poor? And on and on and on. But go make a thread about income inequality and how we need to end these mythical wealth transfers to save society if you want to continue chicken littleing about it.
Oh I see, you're totally delusional. I'm guessing you are one of those that says slavery didn't enrich people at the expense of the slaves because their quality of life has improved from Africa...
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On January 17 2014 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 15:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On January 15 2014 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 15 2014 06:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:Fact of the matter is welfare would be an even smaller program if we started treating the problem instead of the symptoms. The undeniable massive transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% is at the root of most of our social welfare problems regarding government assistance. This "undeniable transfer of wealth" has in fact not occurred, as anyone looking honestly at the statistics can easily see. Anyone who tells you that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor is either lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about. I am totally confused as to how you guys look at the statistics of less people having more wealth, and the avg/min wage buying less now than it did in 1950 and say that everyone is getting richer. The closest article I found supporting the insane idea that everyone is getting richer and at little to no cost to the poor but it pretty much just shows why such a viewpoint is totally nonsensical. "The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows." That means instead of the top 1% getting a raise they could of DOUBLED the entire annual income of the bottom 20% of ALL Americans without losing a nickel compared to previous years. So you mean to say 1% of Americans 'earning' a RAISE equal to the entire annual income of 20% American workers didn't come at the 20%'s expense who saw no real wage increase? American workers are more productive than they have been in decades but getting paid less than they used to, and executives salaries have been growing further and further away from their average workers salary. This is indisputable evidence that it has come at a cost to the poorest among us and even well up into the bottom 80% of income earners in America. If you can't understand that than I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. One of a million supporting sources None of that shows that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor. Again, to claim that there has been a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich reveals either dishonesty. ignorance, or confusion. You want a country where the rich actually have gotten richer at the expense of the poor, look at Russia. It beggars belief that the rich increasing their income has somehow caused the inflation that is the reason that a dollar buys less today than it did in 1950 or 1960. There's a leap of evidence and logic there, just as there is in the use of the contention that "the top 1% increased their wealth as much as the bottom 20% earns entirely," which in no way proves that the increase in wealth was "transferred" or taken from the bottom 20% to the top 1%. If we accept the assumption that if this income did not go to the top 1% it would have gone to the bottom 20% then certainly, but there is no actual reason to think that that would have been the case. The CBO data shows that from 1979 - 2007 incomes for the poor rose 18%, the middle class 40%, the top 81-99% rose 65%, and the top 1% rose 275%. Even if you think that is terribly out of whack and prefer to ignore that by any material measure the poor have risen farther than that 18% suggests, it still cannot possibly constitute the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. The poverty rate has fallen from 26% in 1968 to 16% now. How is that possible if the rich have been getting richer at the expense of the poor? And on and on and on. But go make a thread about income inequality and how we need to end these mythical wealth transfers to save society if you want to continue chicken littleing about it. Oh I see, you're totally delusional. I'm guessing you are one of those that says slavery didn't enrich people at the expense of the slaves because their quality of life has improved from Africa...
"fuck these numbers things, easier to imply this guy likes the KKK or something"
|
On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do.
No offense but I find it remarkable that anyone would hold this opinion
|
On January 17 2014 08:32 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do. No offense but I find it remarkable that anyone would hold this opinion
Seeing as his opinion is extremely exaggerated and not thought out at all I don't even think he'd hold that view if he thought about what he just said for more than two minutes.
Not having welfare doesn't mean that all the drug addicts die, it doesn't mean that drug addicts have to get their money illegally, it doesn't mean a lot of things. I'm pretty sure the person you're talking to just had an emotional thought and tried getting it out asap..
|
On January 17 2014 08:38 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2014 08:32 BlackJack wrote:On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do. No offense but I find it remarkable that anyone would hold this opinion Seeing as his opinion is extremely exaggerated and not thought out at all I don't even think he'd hold that view if he thought about what he just said for more than two minutes. Not having welfare doesn't mean that all the drug addicts die, it doesn't mean that drug addicts have to get their money illegally, it doesn't mean a lot of things. I'm pretty sure the person you're talking to just had an emotional thought and tried getting it out asap..
What about the people who drink or smoke? They're doing drugs too, so we should cut their welfare. Might as well ban fat people too because they're addicted to food and will be wasting our tax dollars on it. Also people who have sex, we don't want to have to pay for condoms.
Drug testing for welfare is just a propaganda tool for elected officials. They get morons all hyped up by saying that them drug addicts on the street with their cracks and meths and heroins and pots are stealing your tax dollars BYAH! They further inform you about this shadow organization of people who do nothing but do drugs all day and steal your tax dollars (sounds like something that happens at the top of wealth distribution too) and they tell you that they are many in number. Then they say they'll do something about it and then you vote for them.
Since they say they're trying to effectively legislate morality, why don't they target the fats, the drunks, the smokers, and the fuckers? Because they don't give a shit about legislating morality. They're just building on and using a negative popular perception to gain votes by throwing a disliked minority group under the wagon.
|
"It ignores that current understanding of drug addiction which physically alters one's brain to the point that people continue to use even though they want to quit but cannot do so."
That's a bunch of bs I don't believe in anymore based on my experience and I don't think anyone should.
I was on morphine for close to a year, initially due to chronic pain associated with my illness and towards the end I was taking pretty large doses (up to ~400mg a day, while the minimum lethal dose is set at 200mg, 60mg for people sensitive to it). While I was on it, I quickly started to enjoy its effects and I started to like it and request prescriptions for higher and higher doses. However, one day I decided that it was enough and I didn't want to be negatively affecting my daily mental and physical performance anymore. If I wanted to, I could've continued taking it, getting prescriptions for it for the rest of my life and having it reimbursed due to the nature of my illness. But I decided that I wanted to quit. The withdrawal was painful for a few days and I was on my own. Frankly, it was as much of a nightmare as I can imagine something to be. But after it was out of my system, I was done with it. Sure, psychological effects persist and sometimes I feel like taking a large dose and nod off, especially when I'm having a few bad days. But I DECIDE not to.
After all of this, I have absolutely no sympathy for drug addicts. They are drug addicts because they CHOOSE to be, not because something tells them that they can't quit. If I can relatively easily quit a drug as addictive as morphine with my addictive personality, anyone can.
On a side note, I love the concept of this law and I feel it should exist everywhere in a refined form, if it can be good ROI. People who aren't on drugs have nothing to worry about here - one test and they get their money. If you want to get money other members of the society are funding so you can live an easier life yourself, you should at least not feel so freakin entitled. And drug addicts can go somewhere else to fund their addiction instead of the tax payers.
|
On January 17 2014 10:57 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2014 08:38 PanN wrote:On January 17 2014 08:32 BlackJack wrote:On January 15 2014 05:57 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand why drug addicts shouldn't get welfare. Surely you don't want them to get their drug money in illegal ways, and you obviously don't want them to die? Just seems like a very childish and cruel thing to do. No offense but I find it remarkable that anyone would hold this opinion Seeing as his opinion is extremely exaggerated and not thought out at all I don't even think he'd hold that view if he thought about what he just said for more than two minutes. Not having welfare doesn't mean that all the drug addicts die, it doesn't mean that drug addicts have to get their money illegally, it doesn't mean a lot of things. I'm pretty sure the person you're talking to just had an emotional thought and tried getting it out asap.. What about the people who drink or smoke? They're doing drugs too, so we should cut their welfare. Might as well ban fat people too because they're addicted to food and will be wasting our tax dollars on it. Also people who have sex, we don't want to have to pay for condoms. Drug testing for welfare is just a propaganda tool for elected officials. They get morons all hyped up by saying that them drug addicts on the street with their cracks and meths and heroins and pots are stealing your tax dollars BYAH! They further inform you about this shadow organization of people who do nothing but do drugs all day and steal your tax dollars (sounds like something that happens at the top of wealth distribution too) and they tell you that they are many in number. Then they say they'll do something about it and then you vote for them. Since they say they're trying to effectively legislate morality, why don't they target the fats, the drunks, the smokers, and the fuckers? Because they don't give a shit about legislating morality. They're just building on and using a negative popular perception to gain votes by throwing a disliked minority group under the wagon.
we actually do do those things. Food stamps can't be used to buy cigarettes or alcohol or fast food. A lot of states have been passing laws banning the use of benefits cards from accessing ATMs in strip clubs and bars and gambling establishments.
But I do want to pay for their condoms. That's a good use of tax payer money if it prevents unplanned pregnancies for people that already can't support themselves.
|
I'd be more supportive of drug-testing for welfare if the implementation of it didn't cost more than the amount it would save (looking at it from a utilitarian standpoint). But because it doesn't, I wouldn't agree with it.
Playing devil's advocate and assuming that it would save money if implemented, I probably hold an opinion in the minority (at least from the TL posts I've read since this was bumped) that you probably shouldn't get money from the government if you've tested positive for drugs. If you're getting payed by the government for having a low income, I don't think it's ethically responsible to spend that money on drugs. I'd be inclined to include alcohol and people with gambling problems with this list as well (if there were a good way to test for that, anyways). If you're spending your welfare money on drugs/alcohol/gambling etc, then you don't need it as much as you'd think.
On January 16 2014 01:10 crazyweasel wrote:
this kind of policy will then, remove alot of people their rights to recieve social services, plus who is the state to tell you what not to buy with YOUR money, that's liberty violation right there. are we just gonna let these people die of hunger?
When the state is handing out taxpayer money, why should they decide not to test the people they're giving it out to? Why would you want your money that's supposed to be helping poor people pay bills etc. instead be used for drugs instead? It's not an issue of what people do with money they've earned, but rather money they've been given. If you have enough money to pay for drugs that you've earned out of your own pocket, then more power to you. When you're so desperately poor that you need government subsidies, and you're paying for drugs, then there's an issue of wasting taxpayer money.
Would a correct analogy be like giving a homeless man money and him spending it on alcohol instead? Maybe you give him money thinking he'll do the sensible thing and buy food with it, but instead he gets beer. Wouldn't you want to KNOW that he wasn't going to spend it on beer before-hand (like a drug-test for welfare) so that you could decide to give him money or not?
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
we actually do do those things. Food stamps can't be used to buy cigarettes or alcohol or fast food. A lot of states have been passing laws banning the use of benefits cards from accessing ATMs in strip clubs and bars and gambling establishments.
here's the tricky part - money is fungible. If you give someone that wants alcohol money to buy food, and they were going to buy food anyways, you've just essentially bought alcohol for them anyways
Its not necessarily a 1:1 conversion but it is a conversion that does exist (see: people that sell their food stamps)
|
On January 17 2014 11:05 tombigbimbom wrote:
"It ignores that current understanding of drug addiction which physically alters one's brain to the point that people continue to use even though they want to quit but cannot do so."
That's a bunch of bs I don't believe in anymore based on my experience and I don't think anyone should.
I was on morphine for close to a year, initially due to chronic pain associated with my illness and towards the end I was taking pretty large doses (up to ~400mg a day, while the minimum lethal dose is set at 200mg, 60mg for people sensitive to it). While I was on it, I quickly started to enjoy its effects and I started to like it and request prescriptions for higher and higher doses. However, one day I decided that it was enough and I didn't want to be negatively affecting my daily mental and physical performance anymore. If I wanted to, I could've continued taking it, getting prescriptions for it for the rest of my life and having it reimbursed due to the nature of my illness. But I decided that I wanted to quit. The withdrawal was painful for a few days and I was on my own. Frankly, it was as much of a nightmare as I can imagine something to be. But after it was out of my system, I was done with it. Sure, psychological effects persist and sometimes I feel like taking a large dose and nod off, especially when I'm having a few bad days. But I DECIDE not to.
After all of this, I have absolutely no sympathy for drug addicts. They are drug addicts because they CHOOSE to be, not because something tells them that they can't quit. If I can relatively easily quit a drug as addictive as morphine with my addictive personality, anyone can.
On a side note, I love the concept of this law and I feel it should exist everywhere in a refined form, if it can be good ROI. People who aren't on drugs have nothing to worry about here - one test and they get their money. If you want to get money other members of the society are funding so you can live an easier life yourself, you should at least not feel so freakin entitled. And drug addicts can go somewhere else to fund their addiction instead of the tax payers.
No offense but your one subjective, anecdotal experience with regard to drugs does absolutely nothing to overturn the voluminous body of research written and maintained by the medical community that states, among a great many other things, that chemical dependency is a disease, that it alters brain chemistry, etc. To claim otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd. Your whole post is ugly, wrongheaded and profoundly misinformed.
On topic: invasive, costly, and unneeded? Sounds like an ideal law.  This is to placate rightwing nutjobs that think a majority of welfare users are pregnant crack addicts despite zero evidence of this other than the patently absurd fear-mongering spouted by their favorite talking head. A sad and embarrassing turn of events, in my opinion.
|
|
|
So now they will be drug addicts AND extra poor.
And taxpayers still have to pay for the tests I guess so in the end they don't even save money, it just goes in a different pocket.
|
In theory a good idea, but in practice it's super counterintuitive for those getting benefits and the taxpayers. It seems a perfect idea to appease those with morality-focused minds and some companies that need some extra love from the government. A perfect law for freedom-loving America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
