• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Drug Screening Required for Welfare

So jhmd, you're in favor of putting the weight of BIG GOVERNMENT toward solving the nation's drug abuse problems?

Again?

Please outline your strategy and how cutting off welfare funds to a small percentage of the nation's drug users without offering drug treatment programs fits into your strategy.
 
PhDeac said:
So jhmd, you're in favor of putting the weight of BIG GOVERNMENT toward solving the nation's drug abuse problems?

Again?

Please outline your strategy and how cutting off welfare funds to a small percentage of the nation's drug users without offering drug treatment programs fits into your strategy.
Click to expand...

Please outline the Constitutional basis for any money being used for subsidizing people, whether on drugs or otherwise.

Please follow this Constitutional basis for federal drug treatment programs.

#Nannystate
 
So then what's your solution?
 
PhDeac said:
Solution to what? Drugs use and abuse are a problem that isn't confined to one social class or another.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely a relationship between socioeconomic class and susceptibility to drug addiction, and it's been shown behaviorally as well in non-human primates..done at Wake Forest. Ever hear of the place?. That's not to say that some rich people do not have addiction problems but the prevalence is far less and the amount of drug use needed to tip over into addiction is higher. It seems to be tied to some sort of measure of 'confidence' or dominance.

You can't make a perfect government program, so cherry picking the problems is always somewhat hollow. At least this is an effort at the state level, where such programs should occur, to fix a problem. I don't see this as an effort to save money, it's to ensure the money gets circulated in legitimate or ethical enterprises. I suspect people against drug use don't really like being forced to essentially pay for others to take drugs.

That said if government weren't in the welfare business this wouldn't be an issue and likewise if drugs weren't illegal such spending would be with ethical enterprises. There are lots of other solutions other than "big government" spending.

I'd love for banks to be more accountable just like people, since corporations are the same as people. Just take away the federally backed programs that insure deposits and such then you'll get there. I doubt that'll go over well though....security and all.
 
The solution is to get tough on all entitlements. If you have sufficient resources, you don't get social security. Sorry - yes, you paid in and you were promised you were going to get it, but you don't need it, so you don't get it. If you do drugs, you don't get welfare. Sorry, yes, you need it, but you don't get it. Similar solution for health care entitlements - take recipient's baseline health measurements. If they totally disregard their own health, they should not receive entitlements/care for issues directly attributable to their own disregard.
 
"At least this is an effort at the state level, where such programs should occur, to fix a problem. I don't see this as an effort to save money, it's to ensure the money gets circulated in legitimate or ethical enterprises."

So then why not drug test anybody who receives government money, not just welfare recipients?
 
PhDeac said:
So then what's your solution?
Click to expand...

You have to care enough about your fellow man to actually want to help them succeed, not just survive. I'm not saying you don't care (I believe you do), but you have to incentivize success, not subsistence, with policy. You get what you inspect, not what you expect, so measure (and reward) productive, authentic effort (and vice versa).

First, you break the dependency cycles (we're on generation four of subsistence, LBJ-era megafail programs) by limiting public assistance to a maximum lifetime eligibility; with extensions earned upon completion of education and job training. The minute you go on, you start burning something you can exhaust (versus perpetual annuity of poverty).

You don't do anyone a long-term favor with a dependency-enabling subsistence program.
 
So your solution is basically screw 'em.

How do you incentivize success? How to you encourage this success? How much are you willing to spend on education and job training?

Again, welfare exists because the other options are a lot more expensive. I posted this 2 weeks ago and it applies here: "The problem is "kick in the ass" programs are pretty expensive. You can say "teach a man to fish" and all that, but it's much cheaper to just hand out fish and assume the people who get it need it to eat."
 
What about the woman who just takes a toke off a joint at a party? she didn't buy it with taxpayer money, it was free. Someone just handed it to her. What if she gave someone an hand job for it? No taxpayer money there either.

more class warfare and "blame the poor" policies from the right. nothing to see here.

You wanna get people off the dole???? give them a fucking job, give them a fair salary so they can pay their bills and move up, rich assholes.

Big management and Financialization have killed the American middle class, and now they gonna git 'em some welfare queens and potheads and deflect the guilt.
 
PhDeac said:
So how is not getting welfare money going to keep someone off drugs? Seems like taking away welfare money would lead to more crime and child abuse/neglect.

Come up with a straight story and then we can debate the issue.
Click to expand...

I don't think the point of this legislation is to keep someone off drugs. I think the point is that we shouldn't be paying them to do drugs.
 
We are subsizing oil companies. We should make them do drug tests every month for every employee or they don't get any more "pay" from the taxpayers.

The same should happen for all farmers and corporations that own farms that get subsidies.
 
ABCDeac said:
The solution is to get tough on all entitlements. If you have sufficient resources, you don't get social security. Sorry - yes, you paid in and you were promised you were going to get it, but you don't need it, so you don't get it. If you do drugs, you don't get welfare. Sorry, yes, you need it, but you don't get it. Similar solution for health care entitlements - take recipient's baseline health measurements. If they totally disregard their own health, they should not receive entitlements/care for issues directly attributable to their own disregard.
Click to expand...

The health care bureaucracy you just created would be so immense as to defy belief. "Baseline health measurements?" Just creating and assessing this impossible criteria would cost more than Medicare does. Talk about government waste and overreaching.

And what happens to the children cut off from welfare payments? Collateral damage?
 
No RJ, only POOR people who get money. Rich people who get money are alright - they learned how to do it at expensive private universities and from their rich daddies and mommies who game the system all the time but look great doing it and play golf at the club.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I don't think the point of this legislation is to keep someone off drugs. I think the point is that we shouldn't be paying them to do drugs.
Click to expand...

And so I'll ask again. Why is ok to pay rich people to do drugs then?
 
We aren't subsidizing oil companies. They pay taxes out the yin-yang.
 
ABCDeac said:
The solution is to get tough on all entitlements. If you have sufficient resources, you don't get social security. Sorry - yes, you paid in and you were promised you were going to get it, but you don't need it, so you don't get it. If you do drugs, you don't get welfare. Sorry, yes, you need it, but you don't get it. Similar solution for health care entitlements - take recipient's baseline health measurements. If they totally disregard their own health, they should not receive entitlements/care for issues directly attributable to their own disregard.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking this is where you lost Arlington. Call it a hunch.
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
Are farmers going to be drug tested?
Click to expand...

What is it about the distinction between someone who lacks either the desire or ability to contribute to society and those who don't lack either? If someone is unemployable due to addiction that is something that society should be able to identify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top