Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should public assistance be cut off or disallowed to any person who fails a mandatory drug test? Would such a plan create more problems than it solves?
Would it simply drive a stake into a monster, but miss the heart?
The war on drugs does nothing to reduce drug use, it simply inflates the cost of drug marketing, with public welfare paying the increment. But then, the billionaire drug lords are spending their money, on bling and real estate and maybe even equities, putting it back into the economy, and the collapse of the illegal drug trade could itself trigger a recession.
If we took all drug users off welfare, they would need to get their money elsewhere, and unless our economy magically creates 20 or 30 million new jobs and hires the chronically irresponsible to do them, they will then have to use criminal means to get the money to live on, not even counting the money to buy inflated underworld drugs. So the response is for everyone to arm himself against these desperate people, and kill them by the millions when they attack, finally pouring boiling oil on them when they cross the moat. How does that advance the principle of civilization?
Should public assistance be cut off or disallowed to any person who fails a mandatory drug test? Would such a plan create more problems than it solves?
Would it simply drive a stake into a monster, but miss the heart?
The war on drugs does nothing to reduce drug use, it simply inflates the cost of drug marketing, with public welfare paying the increment. But then, the billionaire drug lords are spending their money, on bling and real estate and maybe even equities, putting it back into the economy, and the collapse of the illegal drug trade could itself trigger a recession.
If we took all drug users off welfare, they would need to get their money elsewhere, and unless our economy magically creates 20 or 30 million new jobs and hires the chronically irresponsible to do them, they will then have to use criminal means to get the money to live on, not even counting the money to buy inflated underworld drugs. So the response is for everyone to arm himself against these desperate people, and kill them by the millions when they attack, finally pouring boiling oil on them when they cross the moat. How does that advance the principle of civilization?
Only if it contains alcohol and tobacco tests to.
If the situation is that we don't want to pay for people, to use anything they don't need, we should restrict them from using alcohol and tobacco.
Otherwise, we are just playing semantics with what drugs we think are bad. Where do we stop, heroine, meth, cocaine, marijuana?
Thats why I purposed a government work camp, for those on public welfare. If you can't find a job, and you can't pay for your house, lets put them in a work camp. You can work your way out of it, all of your needs will be meet, but you know they'd be working.
But that would never happen, and neither would what you purpose.
Alcohol and Tobacco lobbies are to powerful, and those on public assistance make up a large part of their customer base.
Thats why I purposed a government work camp, for those on public welfare. If you can't find a job, and you can't pay for your house, lets put them in a work camp. You can work your way out of it, all of your needs will be meet, but you know they'd be working.
But that would never happen, and neither would what you purpose.
Alcohol and Tobacco lobbies are to powerful, and those on public assistance make up a large part of their customer base.
Work camps? Private enterprise would scream bloody murder, saying the government is unfairly competing with them, and the "work camps" would have to be privatized. The government would pay hundreds of billions to corporate-owned work camps, who then "hire" the indigent workers, with plenty of profit left over for the owners.
If a guy is in a work camp, who pays the cost of supporting his family? How do you guard against that money (wherever it comes from) being used to buy drugs?
I'm presuming that your work camps are family accommodations, unless you are a strong advocate of children being raised in fatherless homes. Most families on welfare are single-parent in the first place. How would that work?
No, they cost too much money. Plus, drug tests altogether are a disgusting invasion of privacy.
What costs too much money? What are you talking about?
Is it an invasion of privacy to run a blood alcohol test on a motorist who has just caused an accident? Is it an invasion of privacy to ask a welfare recipient if he owns a second house in the country, or drives a Range Rover, or if those are really her children?
You should have reasonable suspicion to drug test some one, A person causing an accident is suspicious enough for it to hold up in court. You can ask a person anything you want and they can answer you any way they want. but it is up to you to prove if they are lying. Which is why they don't give lie detector exams to welfare applicants, that would make it all very easy, but illegal
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
