| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/01/2011 04:44:56 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by o2bskating:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ah, Art. Don't get mad at Spork. His conclusions were thrust upon him by his genetic makeup and environment during upbringing. That and he was breast fed until he was four. He really has no choice in the matter... ;) |
seriously u just made me spit soda all over my monitor. |
If it landed on the shift key you are all good... |
(say in an airhead voice)what's a shift key? |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 04:55:33 PM · #177 |
In fact, I have been employed by a "poor person," that is to say by someone whose income hovered at the "poverty level." This "poor person" employed others as well, to do real jobs.
But I'm not sure that is the real argument, which seems to have an awful lot to do with judging other people. In a sense it is helpful to say that everyone always has a choice, no matter how addicted to whatever. And we have all been taught by the "experts" to be wary of "enabling" bad "behaviours," but this really is beside the point.
Soon many of these bad choosing people will be coming to your church or community centre for a Christmas dinner. Many of you will be volunteering to make this happen, and no doubt Jason will be among you. Let yourselves be astonished by the graciousness of the unwashed. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 04:59:59 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, what I'm getting from this is: Addicts don't deserve to eat. |
It's their choice - eat or get high. OR, earn a living and do both. ;-)
I understand that you think you are helping people by enabling their behavior, but you are not, in my experience. |
No, I'd be helping people eat who otherwise would starve. |
Well, only because they traded their food stamps for cash to buy drugs. Not "All of them" obviously, but I've known people who do it all the time.
But if it makes you feel good, then have at it. |
If you're so against tax money being used to pay drugs then surely you must want everyone who accepts something from the government (eg. food stamps, govt grants, tax exemptions, subsidies, etc) be required to take a drug test. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:13:32 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, what I'm getting from this is: Addicts don't deserve to eat. |
It's their choice - eat or get high. OR, earn a living and do both. ;-)
I understand that you think you are helping people by enabling their behavior, but you are not, in my experience. |
No, I'd be helping people eat who otherwise would starve. |
Well, only because they traded their food stamps for cash to buy drugs. Not "All of them" obviously, but I've known people who do it all the time.
But if it makes you feel good, then have at it. |
If you're so against tax money being used to pay drugs then surely you must want everyone who accepts something from the government (eg. food stamps, govt grants, tax exemptions, subsidies, etc) be required to take a drug test. |
That's a valid point. Frankly, I would like to see many of those things eliminated - at least until the country gets out of the debt we are in. But taking each of the examples one at a time: food stamps/welfare: yes, I think drug testing is appropriate. Gov't grants: not sure about this. Is there evidence that a large number of people are spending grant money on drugs? Tax exemptions: I don't consider the gov't NOT taking your money the same as them giving you money, so no. Subsidies: same as grants.
I'm not really an "advocate" of drug testing as a condition of gov't assistance, but I think if a majority of voters in any given state decide they want to do it, then I am ok with it. I don't think it will result in massive savings to the welfare coffers and neither do I think thousands will be kicked off and starve to death. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:23:22 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by tnun:
In fact, I have been employed by a "poor person," that is to say by someone whose income hovered at the "poverty level." This "poor person" employed others as well, to do real jobs.
But I'm not sure that is the real argument, which seems to have an awful lot to do with judging other people. In a sense it is helpful to say that everyone always has a choice, no matter how addicted to whatever. And we have all been taught by the "experts" to be wary of "enabling" bad "behaviours," but this really is beside the point.
Soon many of these bad choosing people will be coming to your church or community centre for a Christmas dinner. Many of you will be volunteering to make this happen, and no doubt Jason will be among you. Let yourselves be astonished by the graciousness of the unwashed. |
Amen!
I am soooo hesitant to post this because Orlando talks about Jesus (which will be a lightning rod), but I so want to use it as an example of someone who has been broken from the chains of his former life. It is touching to me.
Orlando |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:32:28 PM · #181 |
"Fixed" your citation ... ;-)
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm guessing because they are illegal drugs and there's been a war on it since the 80's 20's. Have you not seen the show Cops The Untouchables? |
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:34:46 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
That's a valid point. Frankly, I would like to see many of those things eliminated - at least until the country gets out of the debt we are in. But taking each of the examples one at a time: food stamps/welfare: yes, I think drug testing is appropriate. Gov't grants: not sure about this. Is there evidence that a large number of people are spending grant money on drugs? |
Is there evidence that a large number of people are spending food stamps/welfare on drugs? |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:35:40 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, what I'm getting from this is: Addicts don't deserve to eat. |
It's their choice - eat or get high. OR, earn a living and do both. ;-)
I understand that you think you are helping people by enabling their behavior, but you are not, in my experience. |
No, I'd be helping people eat who otherwise would starve. |
people need to learn to help themselves. |
Yes they do, but that doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't help them until they can. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:39:07 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
That's a valid point. Frankly, I would like to see many of those things eliminated - at least until the country gets out of the debt we are in. But taking each of the examples one at a time: food stamps/welfare: yes, I think drug testing is appropriate. Gov't grants: not sure about this. Is there evidence that a large number of people are spending grant money on drugs? |
Is there evidence that a large number of people are spending food stamps/welfare on drugs? |
I would assume there is in Florida. As for around my area, I have only a mountain of anecdotal evidence. But then, like I said, I am not crusading to implement drug testing here. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:39:12 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If we find that a person getting public assistance is using illegal drugs, I assume we would put them in prison? |
Why in the world would you assume that? Nobody that I know of has proposed that. |
I'm guessing because they are illegal drugs and there's been a war on it since the 80's. Have you not seen the show Cops? |
I've never heard of anyone getting arrested for a positive urinalysis - unless they are on probation maybe. |
But is that because drug testing is usually conducted by a business like in a condition for employment? Wouldn't the government doing the same be required to act on the illegality? |
You're showing your lack of knowledge on the subject. Even the military will only issue non-judicial punishment for a positive urinalysis - and they may process you out - at least that was the case when I was in, over 20 years ago. ...ugh, that hurts to say.
It is my understanding that the drug laws all relate to "possession" with various modifiers like "with intent to distribute" etc. Other than potentially DUI, I don't think there is an actual law against having drugs in your system. Could be wrong, though. |
I had friends that got busted for "minor in possession" when they tested positive for alcohol during my freshman year of college. Even though they had no actual alcoholic beverages in their possession.
It's not a stretch to imagine that same logic being applied to drugs. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:41:07 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, what I'm getting from this is: Addicts don't deserve to eat. |
It's their choice - eat or get high. OR, earn a living and do both. ;-)
I understand that you think you are helping people by enabling their behavior, but you are not, in my experience. |
No, I'd be helping people eat who otherwise would starve. |
people need to learn to help themselves. |
Yes they do, but that doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't help them until they can. |
This is something that many people fail to understand - Most people on all sides of the political spectrum would agree that "we" should help people. But people on the left think "we" is the government and people on the right think "we" is we, as individuals and private organizations. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:42:34 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If we find that a person getting public assistance is using illegal drugs, I assume we would put them in prison? |
Why in the world would you assume that? Nobody that I know of has proposed that. |
I'm guessing because they are illegal drugs and there's been a war on it since the 80's. Have you not seen the show Cops? |
I've never heard of anyone getting arrested for a positive urinalysis - unless they are on probation maybe. |
But is that because drug testing is usually conducted by a business like in a condition for employment? Wouldn't the government doing the same be required to act on the illegality? |
You're showing your lack of knowledge on the subject. Even the military will only issue non-judicial punishment for a positive urinalysis - and they may process you out - at least that was the case when I was in, over 20 years ago. ...ugh, that hurts to say.
It is my understanding that the drug laws all relate to "possession" with various modifiers like "with intent to distribute" etc. Other than potentially DUI, I don't think there is an actual law against having drugs in your system. Could be wrong, though. |
I had friends that got busted for "minor in possession" when they tested positive for alcohol during my freshman year of college. Even though they had no actual alcoholic beverages in their possession.
It's not a stretch to imagine that same logic being applied to drugs. |
Laws for minors can be very different than adults. So... they were sent to prison? ;-) |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:43:05 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ah, Art. Don't get mad at Spork. His conclusions were thrust upon him by his genetic makeup and environment during upbringing. That and he was breast fed until he was four. He really has no choice in the matter... ;) |
No, I choose to be this way. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:44:20 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If we find that a person getting public assistance is using illegal drugs, I assume we would put them in prison? |
Why in the world would you assume that? Nobody that I know of has proposed that. |
I'm guessing because they are illegal drugs and there's been a war on it since the 80's. Have you not seen the show Cops? |
I've never heard of anyone getting arrested for a positive urinalysis - unless they are on probation maybe. |
But is that because drug testing is usually conducted by a business like in a condition for employment? Wouldn't the government doing the same be required to act on the illegality? |
You're showing your lack of knowledge on the subject. Even the military will only issue non-judicial punishment for a positive urinalysis - and they may process you out - at least that was the case when I was in, over 20 years ago. ...ugh, that hurts to say.
It is my understanding that the drug laws all relate to "possession" with various modifiers like "with intent to distribute" etc. Other than potentially DUI, I don't think there is an actual law against having drugs in your system. Could be wrong, though. |
I had friends that got busted for "minor in possession" when they tested positive for alcohol during my freshman year of college. Even though they had no actual alcoholic beverages in their possession.
It's not a stretch to imagine that same logic being applied to drugs. |
Laws for minors can be very different than adults. So... they were sent to prison? ;-) |
No prison, but the punishment was no different than if they'd been caught with a 12 pack of that shit beer they drank. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:45:03 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ah, Art. Don't get mad at Spork. His conclusions were thrust upon him by his genetic makeup and environment during upbringing. That and he was breast fed until he was four. He really has no choice in the matter... ;) |
No, I choose to be this way. |
And I'm not "mad" at you, either, for the record. You're like a brother to me. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:49:46 PM · #191 |
| Jason, that is wonderful about Orlando. But the transformative experience I was suggesting at these charity feasts was one for the providers. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 05:56:43 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Jason, that is wonderful about Orlando. But the transformative experience I was suggesting at these charity feasts was one for the providers. |
Oh yes, assuredly. Volunteering provides as much benefit for the volunteer as it does the person they are serving. Jenn (my wife) just returned from a trip to Haiti two weeks ago where she worked in a tent village (amazingly still around three years after the earthquake). I am going back in March hopefully with our eleven year old son. To open his eyes at that age to the fact there are lots of people who live lives very differently than he does (read: not only no DS and Minecraft, but no roof, school, etc.) will hopefully start a life of caring for those less fortunate than him.
Thanks for your giving a face to the poor with your anecdote! |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 06:02:53 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
And for every one that successfully quits using, how many more try and fail? |
TO this I would answer that success does not normally come with the first try, and for some may never occur. The thing one should strive for is ... to try.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 06:07:12 PM · #194 |
Here's another recent "success" story ... Cecil's story: Man who cost Tacoma taxpayers millions for care, emergency services, is sober
Also, that paper has started a poll ...
HOT BUTTON Poll:
Should the feds reclassify marijuana so it can be prescribed legally?
Yes 132 73%
No 48 27%
Total Votes: 180
Let pharmacists sell pot, governors urge
Message edited by author 2011-12-01 18:11:59. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 06:17:14 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
And for every one that successfully quits using, how many more try and fail? |
TO this I would answer that success does not normally come with the first try, and for some may never occur. The thing one should strive for is ... to try.
Ray |
Yes, but kicking them when they're down isn't really encouraging them to try. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 06:20:26 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
And for every one that successfully quits using, how many more try and fail? |
TO this I would answer that success does not normally come with the first try, and for some may never occur. The thing one should strive for is ... to try.
Ray |
Yes, but kicking them when they're down isn't really encouraging them to try. |
I don't know about where you live my friend, but in these parts we have all kinds of social assistance for people in need, including needle exchange programs.
Maybe they get kicked harder where you live. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 06:20:51 PM · #197 |
The conversation is ranging all over the place here (which is normal), but I just say either make it legal period or illegal. The idea of "medical marijuana" is silly, confusing, and ultimately damaging to patients and doctors. I have seen medical marijuana prescribed for nearly everything and getting a card in Washington and Oregon is no more difficult than visiting a booth at one of many festivals being held (I wish I could find the Seattle Times article documenting how little it takes to get a card). I joke that Oregon has 44,000 medical marijuana cards (likely higher by now), but we can't put fluoride in our drinking water (listed by the CDC as one of the top 10 health initiatives of the century). The medical literature for marijuana as a therapy exists, but is limited and the conventional wisdom becomes that it's good for all sorts of things (leading people to neglect conventional therapies or seek other alternatives to pain control). The very obvious reality is the marijuana lobby saw these studies as their doorway into acceptance. It pains me because my profession is being used as a patsy to advance a cause. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 06:25:32 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...It pains me because my profession is being used as a patsy to advance a cause. |
Surely you are not saying that your profession would be so naive as to promulgate something that was not true.... say it ain't so Doc. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 06:41:00 PM · #199 |
| If we could sell the stuff like the other mildly toxic addictive substances, alcohol and tobacco, we could balance the budget in one bill. Get half the people in prison out, take the biggest profit maker out of the hands of the gangs, tax the richest farm crop in the United States and get government out of the people's business. Why aren't the Tea Party putting this forward? |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 06:57:00 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If we could sell the stuff like the other mildly toxic addictive substances, alcohol and tobacco, we could balance the budget in one bill. Get half the people in prison out, take the biggest profit maker out of the hands of the gangs, tax the richest farm crop in the United States and get government out of the people's business. Why aren't the Tea Party putting this forward? |
cause you would be taking profits away from the drug cartel and it would probably start a drug war. |
|
