|
| Thread: No Welfare for Drug Users |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 07, 2011 05:32 PM |
|
|
Nah, that's not a valid definition.
The person doing something isn't forcing you. The person is THREATENING you with a scenario: do something OR.
YOU, are the one who makes the choice, how serious you take the threat and whether you bow to it.
If you do not sell your labor the threat, is that you will have no money, no shelter, no food, nothing, so the threat is basically the same: do something legal to obtain money and the means to survive or face the consequences. This is not so much a reality of life, but a function of how well you have been "equipped" by parents and genetics and the way the society works you live in.
Force, in other words, is a question of being threatened and it doesn't have to be a person who does the threateneing: if a volcano threatens to erupt, you are forced to leave your home at its foothills, or else. You don't do it voluntarily.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 05:36 PM |
|
|
A threat of force forces you to do something, and only a human can threaten to use force. Otherwise, it is no more than natural occurrence that has nothing to do with you being there or not.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 05:39 PM |
|
|
Elodin, your logic in applying this entirely unrelated topic to degrading Democrats is entirely flawed. For a start, reducing everything to a two party system is simply insane considering that no issue can be considered black or white, and thus can be aptly described by the views of an elephant or donkey. I know that you are just trolling but I want you to know that it makes no sense. Secondly, the statement that when people get off drugs in order to retain welfare (which, by the way, shows a complete lack of understanding of how drugs work) they will go on to bigger and better things is not always true. I know plenty of people who have never taken drugs and yet have not, and will never, do anything that could be described as 'bigger' or 'better' than anything. However, some of the defining moments of the human culture have been heavily influenced by drugs. And I'm not just talking about Keith Richards.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 05:42 PM |
|
|
Elodin isn't trolling.
He honestly believes in what he writes.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 05:50 PM |
|
|
I disagree. He is just very persistent 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 05:55 PM |
|
|
A troll of such persistence and dedication would be a true marvel. Elodin links a lot of stuff and/or Bible quotes, a troll would never bother to. Too much effort. 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 06:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A threat of force forces you to do something, and only a human can threaten to use force. Otherwise, it is no more than natural occurrence that has nothing to do with you being there or not.
It's certainly good to know that - for example - a fire in your building cannot force you to leave the building , since it's a natural occurence that has nothing to do with you being there or not, and you will leave the house satisfied with the thought that you just made a voluntary decision to go outside.
So while someone with a gun forces me to leave my house a fire won't and I'll leave it voluntarily.
If that sounds like a load of rubbish to you - yes, I agree. So try again.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 06:12 PM |
|
|
No, that's exactly right (unless there was arson) (and obviously I wouldn't be happy, but my decision would have been voluntary).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 06:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, your logic in applying this entirely unrelated topic to degrading Democrats is entirely flawed. For a start, reducing everything to a two party system is simply insane considering that no issue can be considered black or white, and thus can be aptly described by the views of an elephant or donkey.
Wow... sounds like something I wrote.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 06:19 PM |
|
|
Strictly speaking, a fire does not force you to leave a building. The presence of a fire is a piece of data that a human weighs into a decision over whether or not to leave a building. The fact that most humans would opt to leave a burning building because of lethal adverse consequences if they do otherwise does NOT mean that a human is required to leave. The human still has a choice. He could stay and die, or he could even stay and fight the fire.
For that matter, a person with a gun cannot force you to leave by pointing it at you. You have the option to die, after all. That’s not a good option, of course, but just because an option is bad does not mean the option doesn’t exist. The only thing the gun does is make a certain choice much more attractive than another. The only way you can be forced to leave is if someone or something physically picks you up and removes you from the house. For instance, the man with the gun hits you over the head, knocks you unconscious, and then drags you out of the building. Now you have been forced out of the building, because you had no choice in the matter.
Not all forces have human geneses, of course. A man being brought to shore by a current is being forced to the shore, and there’s no human responsible for that. The man can fight against the current, of course - that's his choice, and maybe he'll succeed - but ultimately the force itself is beyond his control, and he has no choice in whether he is drawn toward the shore, fight against it or not.
On the other hand, some forces which seem to be “natural” or “humanless” do have human activity as an ultimate cause. You might say that a man is being “forced” to sell a home because of a bad economy, and no man is forcing him to do it. But ultimately humans are responsible for the economy, so somewhere down the line, another human is “responsible” for bringing about conditions which cause the man to sell his home. Of course in this case the man isn’t actually being “forced” to do anything, because he always has a choice. Better to say that circumstances or the actions of other humans influence his decision, rather than force him to make a certain choice.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 04:56 PM |
|
|
So you want to boot the druggies off welfare. That's fine with me. 
It might have unintended consequences though. Drug addicts are notorious for not really caring what other people think about them and their habits. When you tell them to shape up and become useful citizens it sounds like far away voices to them.
So here we go, kick them off all public assistance. The potheads will usually weigh their options and decide they'd rather have a check then get high. The cokeheads, meth-heads, and heroin addicts however are a different story. Some of them are just going to waste away in their apartments until the stench of their decomposing body finally alerts somebody that they've died. Honestly, I don't really care about them. Most of them however are going to do what addicts are known to do to feed their habit. Burglary, smash and grabs, metal theft, auto theft, assault and armed robbery. Addicts are usually easier to catch than normal criminals so eventually they'll be sent to the prison system, where they'll cost you (an average of) $22650 to incarcerate for a year. That's probably more than you were giving them on the outside. Not very cost effective.
I'm starting to think that the most logical course of action would be to boot them off public assistance and then give them as much free drugs as they want. problem solved *claps hands*
But anyway, give it a shot and see how it turns out for you.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 05:27 PM |
|
|
I'm sure you don't care at all about somebody suffering the slavery of a powerful and harmful chemical addiction, but a lot of people do, and they should, because whether you like it or not they have a very real effect on the world.
---
I strongly support the spirit of this bill, however there are other factors that make it flawed. On the issue of whether it's constitutional: of course it is. JJ's ranting about how "poverty isn't a crime" is a strawman that is completely off-subject from this bill. Putting in conditions to receiving welfare has nothing to do with making criminals of people on welfare; it's a measure to give them accountability. They're not criminals, but they're certainly not a neo-nobility either.
What I am unhappy about, and what Gunnar mentioned, is that the people that are - and very powerfully - hooked on hard drugs are unlikely to be capable of simply stopping. If a heterosexual man is willing to get down on his knees and gobble on a dick for heroine, he's probably not going to be able to stop so that he can receive next months welfare check. And whether they have the money to buy it from illicit vendors or not, they're going to be driven mad to get what they crave, and that means doing things that aren't very nice.
So while people in Florida may largely be endorsing this bill on the short-sighted emotional grounds of "I don't want my taxmoney being used so somebody can buy hard drugs", they may be ignoring the unintended consequences of this.
I think hard drugs should be decriminalized so that people aren't paying tremendous amounts of money to get it from illicit vendors, and getting a grade of the drug that is likely much more dangerous than it has to be. When the drug becomes openly marketable, the price will drop and the (relative) safety of it will increase.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 05:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think hard drugs should be decriminalized so that people aren't paying tremendous amounts of money to get it from illicit vendors, and getting a grade of the drug that is likely much more dangerous than it has to be. When the drug becomes openly marketable, the price will drop and the (relative) safety of it will increase.
I agree. Criminalising drugs has almost no effect on people's ability to obtain them, it just means that the profit margin (which is extremely large due to the risk involved in selling) goes towards funding billionaire outlaws, creating a cycle as seen in Mexico where crime has skyrocketed. Instead, keeping a similar price, better quality, safer drugs could be produced with that profit margin being put towards healthcare and education to tackle the drug problem.
However, this is not really on topic.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 05:56 PM |
|
|
I wonder whether your people are completely crazy.
Whether you stop handing out welfare to a hard-drug addict won't make a difference to them, since the welfare simply can't pay for any drug. Welfare will just pay the basics of life, not more, and that basics of life have to be paid, addicted to drugs or not, which means that
WELFARE DOESN'T BUY HARD DRUGS.
Drug tests are illegal from more than one point of view. A drug test is a check whether someone committed a crime, not whether someone is on drugs. A drug test does not check on legal chemical drugs and is irrelevant on alcohol - you couldn't withhold welfare just because someone drinks a beer. Nor can you test a person on ALL illegal drugs.
So what we have is a check, whether people are guilty of consuming certain illegal drugs. You cannot do that without supporting evidence that would suggest a crime like that for a specific person in question.
If THAT is allowed, you can raid any disco and check every guest on drugs as well.
If THAT is allowed, you can pick a street and check all flats for illegally copied digital data.
If THAT is allowed you can check everything for everyone who goes for ANY kind of social service.
So you can cry as loud as you want - you are selling basic rights here. YOUR country, YOUR rights - but don't cry when they raid your flat and collect your downloaded stuff and don't cry when they start making drug tests and flat checks mandatory for visiting public schools.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:00 PM |
|
|
So no welfare for anyone with a criminal record then? Isn't this what's this is inherently about? drug tests tell that the person has done a crime. How is any regular criminal action any different?
Or is this about the drug addiction itself? Shouldn't we ban people with alcohol, smoking, snuff, coffee, online gaming, etc. addictions too?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:09 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Do you think drug tests for employment at private companies should be illegal?
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:11 PM |
|
|
@Tit:
It is on-topic because the current drug laws aren't synergistic with this bill. Drug users will now be existing in an atmosphere where they're driven to buy from illicit vendors at exorbitant prices, and on-top of it their welfare money will be cut out from under them.
I understand people's desire to not have state money being spent so some loser can buy heroine, but I think they're setting themselves up for some problems. Although I don't think it will be a complete disaster because: no, not everybody will "get their drugs either way". There are plenty of cowardly people such as myself that would probably end up rotting in their apartment in misery for several weeks before the full force of the addiction blew over (not that I'm a drug addict, but if I was...) And then there might be some other people that decide to rob their neighbor for trinkets in a frenzy to get money. So it will be a doubled-edged sword that I think will have some benefits, but overall is still inferior to decriminalizing drugs.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:22 PM |
|
|
@JJ:
I don't think it would be practical, but they should be able to test a person for alcohol levels if they so please, whether it is legal to drink a beer or not. Such measures would only be illegal if they are doing it to the general population out of the blue. People applying for welfare, for a job, or for any program whatsoever are filling out an application form, and there are expectations set therein from both the applicant and the provider. The person entering into that application is choosing or not choosing to undergo the conditions therein, and there is no compulsion involved.
So to go further, yes, there is nothing illegal about a program deciding that they should be able to search your apartment for stolen records, however that is not practical, and that is reflected in that fact that you won't find such a measure executed by any company. What is a norm is that a company will do a quick criminal background check on a person applying for a position, and occasionally there might be a drug test depending on the nature of the work. This is voluntary on both ends, as the person completing the application agrees to have such a check done.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:24 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Even if welfare can't be used to buy drugs (and that depends on the form of welfare - if it's just money, then it can) it can still cause people to buy more drugs. Suppose you spend $400 on food and $400 on drugs when you're "on your own". Now suppose the government gives you $400 to spend on food. Now you can spend $800 on drugs.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:29 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 18:31, 08 Jun 2011.
|
Quote:
It might have unintended consequences though. Drug addicts are notorious for not really caring what other people think about them and their habits. When you tell them to shape up and become useful citizens it sounds like far away voices to them.
what is a useful citizen? are you sure that drug addicts are useless? obviously they are useful, otherwise they wouldn't talk about them. they are probably quite a minor strain on society as a whole, at least economically speaking, but they make a perfect target to blame. their goal is probably more to set a few examples to scare people than to really fight drugs.
oh and there is the question, why do people fall into drugs? certainly not something they would like to investigate seriously.
|
| |
|
|
