| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2011 10:29:35 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd probably assume the urine drug screens were also underreporting. 1) 2% refused to take the test. 2) it's not hard to come up with a clean test if you know enough. Stop smoking 30 days before the test (I hadn't heard if it wad random) or use someone else's urine (a trick I've personally known people to successfully employ).
Still, the interesting question would be, do you think someone taking drugs should receive a government check? |
A lot of groups and individuals receive a government check in the form of a subsidy. So if the argument is that we shouldn't waste taxpayer dollars on people who use illicit drugs, shouldn't the government require mandatory drug testing for everyone who receives a government subsidy? I think the interesting question is why the poor are singled out (by cowboy221977, and others) for special treatment in this regard, especially as we now know that, at least in the State of Florida, welfare recipients are using illicit drugs at half the rate of the general population (assuming 4 percent for the welfare recipients and 8 percent for the general population, although that 8 percent is probably low).
Message edited by author 2011-11-30 22:31:15. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 10:59:57 PM · #127 |
OK I am not on drugs....Do I ant my tax payer dollars going to an individual that is buying illegal drugs.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:12:53 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd probably assume the urine drug screens were also underreporting. 1) 2% refused to take the test. 2) it's not hard to come up with a clean test if you know enough. Stop smoking 30 days before the test (I hadn't heard if it wad random) or use someone else's urine (a trick I've personally known people to successfully employ).
Still, the interesting question would be, do you think someone taking drugs should receive a government check? |
A lot of groups and individuals receive a government check in the form of a subsidy. So if the argument is that we shouldn't waste taxpayer dollars on people who use illicit drugs, shouldn't the government require mandatory drug testing for everyone who receives a government subsidy? I think the interesting question is why the poor are singled out (by cowboy221977, and others) for special treatment in this regard, especially as we now know that, at least in the State of Florida, welfare recipients are using illicit drugs at half the rate of the general population (assuming 4 percent for the welfare recipients and 8 percent for the general population, although that 8 percent is probably low). |
I think it's because everybody can relate to their parent sitting them down and saying, "if you are going to live under my roof and eat my food, there are some rules you have to follow." and this seems inherently reasonable. I'm all for welfare and safety nets for people, but if someone makes the argument that there should be a minimum standard of expectations on the recipient, I have a difficult time arguing against that. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:49:03 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it's because everybody can relate to their parent sitting them down and saying, "if you are going to live under my roof and eat my food, there are some rules you have to follow." and this seems inherently reasonable. I'm all for welfare and safety nets for people, but if someone makes the argument that there should be a minimum standard of expectations on the recipient, I have a difficult time arguing against that. |
Would you feel the same way if churches were forced to perform gay marriages as a condition for the tax exemption benefit?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 01:35:26 AM · #130 |
I know a lady who works at the checkout stand who has described countless times people come in using their food stamp cards for the food portion of their groceries and they use cash for the beer and cigarettes. Another time she said a group of 5 people were standing there right in front of her going on about how each of them claims all the others in their "household" as family so they all get like $500/mo in assistance per person. My daughter's boyfriend is 28, no kids, in excellent shape and health, lives with his wealthy parents and collects food stamps and my daughter was griping that they only gave him $17 recently because he had been working that month. I know PLENTY of people who game the system. That is not to say it doesn't help many people - I know it does, but there is no accountability and the efficiency of the dollars spent is horrible.
My wife (before we got married and she was single with 3 small children) was on welfare in Colorado, but they had a strict policy - you had something like 2 or 3 years of collecting benefits while you are getting your life together and that's it. They had lots of programs to help with school and childcare, but after 3 years, that's it. All of the people I met that lived in the section 8 housing there were actively working and going to school and most of them improved their situation enough within the timeframe to get off assistance before the time limit expired.
Same issue with unemployment (recession notwithstanding), a large majority of people collecting unemployment will be unemployed for as long as the payments keep coming. I've known plenty of people who have used unemployment as a paid vacation (again, this was in a good economy). |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 01:39:32 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it's because everybody can relate to their parent sitting them down and saying, "if you are going to live under my roof and eat my food, there are some rules you have to follow." and this seems inherently reasonable. I'm all for welfare and safety nets for people, but if someone makes the argument that there should be a minimum standard of expectations on the recipient, I have a difficult time arguing against that. |
Would you feel the same way if churches were forced to perform gay marriages as a condition for the tax exemption benefit? |
You have been full of non sequiturs lately. First the burning bush comment over in the steel wool thread, and now this? |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 04:29:12 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it's because everybody can relate to their parent sitting them down and saying, "if you are going to live under my roof and eat my food, there are some rules you have to follow." and this seems inherently reasonable. I'm all for welfare and safety nets for people, but if someone makes the argument that there should be a minimum standard of expectations on the recipient, I have a difficult time arguing against that. |
Would you feel the same way if churches were forced to perform gay marriages as a condition for the tax exemption benefit? |
You have been full of non sequiturs lately. First the burning bush comment over in the steel wool thread, and now this? |
Granted it was a bit of a stretch. The point was your "minimum standard of expectations" would be abitrary. I suspect the only reason you're ok with requiring welfare receipents to adhere to drug tests is because you happen to either be against drugs in general or you just don't care because it doesn't affect you. So I asked the question I ask knowing full well that you wouldn't agree with the particular house rule I placed for churches in order to receive their tax exempt status from dear old daddy government. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 09:40:11 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm a big fan of the "Fire all of the bastards, preferably out of a cannon, and start over" approach... repeat as necessary. |
So you will be voting against your incumbent Rep and Senator in the next election, no matter what party they belong to? |
Yes, you should know I think the parties are worthless. They're ALL a bunch of crooks. The differences between parties are simply a distraction from their overall corruption and ineptitude.
ETA: It doesn't help his case that the representative from my district was on the "Super" committee |
We are on the same page! What would it take to get enough people to NOT vote for a D or R in the next election? |
Even I am with you on this.....We need to get rid of what we have...I helped in my buddies campaign, he was running against Rodney Alexander ( Louisiana 5th district)and does nothing more than giving retired vets a medal (that is important but more needs to be done). Alexander was and incumbent (meaning he had a much better chance)my buddy(being completely unknown) commanded %35 of the vote. If he had a budget more than $1,500 he prob would have won. Alexanders account at that time was slightly over $1,000,000. |
Money may not be enough to save them if enough people voted for "Anybody but the incumbent!" This happened in several races in the 2010 mid-term. |
The problem isn't just the incumbents, it's the lack of good alternatives... Typically, when a Republican incumbent gets voted out, the winning candidate is simply the candidate from the Democrat party and vice versa. Since neither one is better than the other, the only real change is in the name on the door. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 11:27:42 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Granted it was a bit of a stretch. The point was your "minimum standard of expectations" would be abitrary. I suspect the only reason you're ok with requiring welfare receipents to adhere to drug tests is because you happen to either be against drugs in general or you just don't care because it doesn't affect you. So I asked the question I ask knowing full well that you wouldn't agree with the particular house rule I placed for churches in order to receive their tax exempt status from dear old daddy government. |
Well, charities in general already do have a minimum standard of expectation. For example, they cannot advocate politically for a specific candidate for office. Our non-profit state allergy society, likewise, cannot lobby members of the legislature. Such a standard goes against my immediate self-interest, but I understand why it's there.
Look, with welfare we're talking about an activity that is currently illegal. If taking drugs were legal, it's probable the argument would shift in my mind, but as it is how can I argue vociferously against the idea? It actually seems like all the arguments against are ones of discrimination (Judith's point) or privacy (the court's point), but nobody seems to be arguing that they can damn well do drugs if they want. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 11:44:28 AM · #135 |
| honestly i don't see where it makes a difference if they take drugs or not, either way if they do eventually they will get a bad batch and die. that is what you want since you hate us so much, is for us to just die. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 11:47:29 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
honestly i don't see where it makes a difference if they take drugs or not, either way if they do eventually they will get a bad batch and die. that is what you want since you hate us so much, is for us to just die. |
thatisacompletelyridiculousstereotypeofme.whywouldibeontheboardofdirectorsofthelargesthomelessshelterineugeneifiwanted"you"todie?
(trying to type like the hip and young... ;)) |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 11:53:57 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by o2bskating:
honestly i don't see where it makes a difference if they take drugs or not, either way if they do eventually they will get a bad batch and die. that is what you want since you hate us so much, is for us to just die. |
thatisacompletelyridiculousstereotypeofme.whywouldibeontheboardofdirectorsofthelargesthomelessshelterineugeneifiwanted"you"todie?
(trying to type like the hip and young... ;)) |
sadly i can read that...and it's not "you" it's "us" all of us degenerates who hear about it every day or time we go shopping or to the doctors office and have people move their kids like omg they are contaminated don't get too close honey.
and not you so much as everyone else posting. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:09:26 PM · #138 |
With no reflection on you whatsoever, I can relate to some instances in life (work or elsewhere) where people come in and you can see that some basic lifestyle choices are directly contributing to their difficulties in life. Some of these people, however, carry a persecution complex and feel that all their troubles have everything to do with everybody else and nothing to do with them. I have a heart for justice for the poor, but at times even I have trouble being around such people. I feel for them, but sometimes the easiest thing to do is to "push them on" so as to serve other people who are more servable.
It would be easy to say "the hell with them, let them take drugs". It's harder to try to come alongside them, point out the drugs are not helping their situation one iota, address the deeper issues, and put them back on their feet. The real failing of the Florida law is not pointing out the problem (an individual using drugs), but the fact there is only punishment and no help. In that regard it's draconian and I really don't think it's going to be very helpful. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:24:07 PM · #139 |
i don't do drugs so i really don't have a problem with piss testing anyone, but what are you gonna do when they start testing everyone on welfare and disability and one stoner figures out, hey i can get high on methadone instead of pot it's legal!! and free!!!, and you end up with 40 bajillion heroin addicts on welfare.
if you want lessons in typing like a kewl kid pm me. but i'm probably older than you. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:39:10 PM · #140 |
The interesting question to ponder (and I'm not sure there is a right answer) is if you have limited resources and a group of people sitting at a 1 in life (let's say 1 is the bottom, 5 is getting by and 10 is the lap of luxury), do you spend your resources to bring everybody up to a 2 or do you spend your resources to bring some people up to a 5 even though it means others stay at a 1?
For better or for worse I think the intent of the Florida law is to tell drug users that they go to the back of the line and others will be served before them (and since there are limited resources, the back of the line means no service). |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:51:22 PM · #141 |
| problem is the system isn't designed to bring people up to 5 it's designed to keep them at 1 or 2. if your on welfare and medicaid you can't really afford anything except for your section 8 housing, but you have healthcare. most people on welfare either have medical problems or are nutz and have to have some form of healthcare to survive. now if you take them up to a 5 that means they will probably be working 2 part time jobs with no benefits. if you don't have the benefits you can't afford your medicine and your doctors, so you can't leave 1 or 2 because at 5 you will either die or get kicked back down to 1 to have your insurance. it's impossible to get out of that system, and you of all people should know what it's like when a psych patient doesn't take their meds for a day or two. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:58:47 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
problem is the system isn't designed to bring people up to 5 it's designed to keep them at 1 or 2. if your on welfare and medicaid you can't really afford anything except for your section 8 housing, but you have healthcare. most people on welfare either have medical problems or are nutz and have to have some form of healthcare to survive. now if you take them up to a 5 that means they will probably be working 2 part time jobs with no benefits. if you don't have the benefits you can't afford your medicine and your doctors, so you can't leave 1 or 2 because at 5 you will either die or get kicked back down to 1 to have your insurance. it's impossible to get out of that system, and you of all people should know what it's like when a psych patient doesn't take their meds for a day or two. |
Oh, I agree. Mental health is huge among the homeless. We estimate it's probably in the 80% range at the shelter. Unfortunately one of the truths is we just don't know very much to know how to treat it. Our current therapies are blunt instruments. BUT, there are people who escape the cycle of poverty. I have seen it with my own eyes. Those cases are to be celebrated! |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 01:01:46 PM · #143 |
| haha well maybe i'll come to your shelter when i'm homeless... |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 01:32:18 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
With no reflection on you whatsoever, I can relate to some instances in life (work or elsewhere) where people come in and you can see that some basic lifestyle choices are directly contributing to their difficulties in life. Some of these people, however, carry a persecution complex and feel that all their troubles have everything to do with everybody else and nothing to do with them. |
So you don't agree that most people who take hard drugs do so because of lousy parenting, poor genes or extreme hardships? You say you can relate. Have you walked in their shoes? |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:48:07 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
With no reflection on you whatsoever, I can relate to some instances in life (work or elsewhere) where people come in and you can see that some basic lifestyle choices are directly contributing to their difficulties in life. Some of these people, however, carry a persecution complex and feel that all their troubles have everything to do with everybody else and nothing to do with them. I have a heart for justice for the poor, but at times even I have trouble being around such people. I feel for them, but sometimes the easiest thing to do is to "push them on" so as to serve other people who are more servable.
It would be easy to say "the hell with them, let them take drugs". It's harder to try to come alongside them, point out the drugs are not helping their situation one iota, address the deeper issues, and put them back on their feet. The real failing of the Florida law is not pointing out the problem (an individual using drugs), but the fact there is only punishment and no help. In that regard it's draconian and I really don't think it's going to be very helpful. |
Lifestyle choices huh? Do you really think addiction is a choice? It may be the result of a bad choice made in the past, but it's not like every day an addict gets up and chooses to be an addict. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:51:12 PM · #146 |
I've worked with opioid addicts since 1985, and worked on a crisis-intervention hotline for about ten years before that.
1. We are supposed to be about individual freedom and personal responsibility, and minimizing the government's interference in our personal lives. People should be free to take what they want, with informed consent of the risks and accepting responsibility for the consequences.
2. Prohibition has not not been (consistently) "successful" over several thousand years of recorded history, and it won't be now, at least not without total abandonment of any pretense of individual liberty. It costs one-tenth to keep someone in (outpatient) treatement as in state prison, and most addicts would admit themselves to treatment if able to at no cost (most don't have $300/month cash to spare).
3. If the government wants to have any credibility regarding drug use, they need to be honest about the science of drugs and addiction; the actual harm they do has no relation to their legal status, and current laws seem to me dangerously close to the legal definition of arbitrary and capricious. Remember that whether and when a drug is legal is subject to legislative whim, unrelated to science or the reality of life in a modern society. To say that altering your mind with one chemical (e.g. Prozac) is good but using another makes you a felon makes no sense ...   
This is approximately how I would rank the most common drugs of abuse, from most to least physiologically harmful, assuming they are available at the pharmacy and people aren't forced to share needles or engage in other risky routes of administration:
Cocaine*
Tobacco**
Alcohol
Methamphetamine
Prescription Drugs***
Marijuana (if smoked)
Hallucinogens
Heroin
Methadone****
Marijuana (if eaten)
Caffeine
*I list cocaine as the most "dangerous" because it is capable of causing sudden death (ventricular fibrillation a.k.a. cardiac arrest) at any dosage, not just high or "over-"doses. As of about 1976 (when I last looked in a catalog) it was still available as Cocaine HCl USP 100% (powder/crystals) from Merck for about $100/ounce.
**Tobacco is the #1 lethal drug in the US, causing/contributing significantly to about 400,000 deaths/year in the US alone. Due to the educational efforts of groups like MADD and increased enforcement of DUI laws alcohol-related deaths on the road have dropped significantly in the past few years, but are still several thousand yearly.
Tobacco and marijuana share the additional health burden of having the potential to expose persons other than the actual user to the harmful effects, depending on how and where they are used. Alcohol used in certain circumstances (e.g. when driving, arguing) exposes innocent others to potentially lethal consequences.
***Deaths from prescription drugs (last year?) were more than those from heroin, cocaine, and some others combined, I think something over 15,000.
****Methadone would be preferred as a long-term oral opiate because it is very long-acting and is not combined with acetaminophen as are most of the other opiate analgesic preparations available; acetaminophen in high doses can be toxic to the liver, especially if combined with alcohol.
Now that we've experienced this entertaining and (hopefully) educational diversion, we should try to get back on the actual thread topic of the OWS movement ...
Message edited by author 2011-12-01 14:55:53. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 03:03:37 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Lifestyle choices huh? Do you really think addiction is a choice? It may be the result of a bad choice made in the past, but it's not like every day an addict gets up and chooses to be an addict. |
Ultimately there is personal responsibility at some level. What behavior could one not attempt to blame on external or uncontrollable influences? It was my parent's fault. It's my genetics. etc. etc. etc. I understand the reality that your upbringing and your genetics DO play a role, but at the end of the day I don't think it's reasonable just to give everybody a free pass for everything they do. Expecting someone not to partake in illegal activity is the basic minimum for a society to function, no? Whether or not you think it should/shouldn't be illegal is completely separate to the argument. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 03:17:48 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Lifestyle choices huh? Do you really think addiction is a choice? It may be the result of a bad choice made in the past, but it's not like every day an addict gets up and chooses to be an addict. |
Ultimately there is personal responsibility at some level. What behavior could one not attempt to blame on external or uncontrollable influences? It was my parent's fault. It's my genetics. etc. etc. etc. I understand the reality that your upbringing and your genetics DO play a role, but at the end of the day I don't think it's reasonable just to give everybody a free pass for everything they do. Expecting someone not to partake in illegal activity is the basic minimum for a society to function, no? Whether or not you think it should/shouldn't be illegal is completely separate to the argument. |
You haven't got a clue what addiction is like, do you? The fact is that for the addict, it's not really a choice anymore. It's as essential as eating.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 03:20:16 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Lifestyle choices huh? Do you really think addiction is a choice? It may be the result of a bad choice made in the past, but it's not like every day an addict gets up and chooses to be an addict. |
Ultimately there is personal responsibility at some level. What behavior could one not attempt to blame on external or uncontrollable influences? It was my parent's fault. It's my genetics. etc. etc. etc. I understand the reality that your upbringing and your genetics DO play a role, but at the end of the day I don't think it's reasonable just to give everybody a free pass for everything they do. Expecting someone not to partake in illegal activity is the basic minimum for a society to function, no? Whether or not you think it should/shouldn't be illegal is completely separate to the argument. |
You haven't got a clue what addiction is like, do you? The fact is that for the addict, it's not really a choice anymore. It's as essential as eating. |
So why do you hear about people quitting an addiction all the time?
Mothers, fathers, grandparents, brothers, sisters, neighbors, etc, etc.
Sure, addiction blows no doubt about it. But I am with Doc here... Addiction to some extent (enough) is a choice. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 03:22:07 PM · #150 |
If we find that a person getting public assistance is using illegal drugs, I assume we would put them in prison?
So we would spend $42 per recipient per test, that's 30 million times $42 about 4 or 6 times a year. so the test adds $6.3 billion to expenditures. Then remove the 4-40% of illegal drug users from the welfare roles saving us $6,018 per person per year, then put them in prison at an average cost of $43,276 per person per year. I'm not getting a net reduction in tax payer costs. |
|
