Phil O'Keefe Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Eh, I dunno. How about all of the corporate welfare we give out, can the CEOs and their board of trustees all be drug tested too? And since they have so many billions of our dollars invested, I think they should also be screened for high cholesterol and annual physical exams should be mandatory too. Hey, as long as they get tax subsidies and are deemed to be such important people in society, we really can't afford to have them be in poor health, whether it's the high end coke they're using, or those cholesterol laden lunches they get (for free). Only seems fair, right? Yup. Everybody. And not just drugs. Cigarettes kill more people than illegal drugs, so we're going to start testing you for those too - you're making our health insurance costs go up, and we want "more" than the huge extra tax we've already placed on your substance of choice. The health risks concerning alcohol are a big issue for some people, so we'll need to go after those who drink beer, wine and spirits too. Oh, and I'm sorry, but you're 20lbs overweight, and the jelly donut police say you've had enough food for the day... But how about instead of drug screening all of the poor people, which by the way, is a segment of society that uses illegal drugs no more in terms of % than the middle or upper class, we just do away with these stupid, draconian drug laws. It isn't working, it never worked, and it serves no purpose. If the law was written the right way, and if some of the savings was spent on drug rehabilitation and education programs, as a libertarian-leaning individual, I would likely support that. But if you get in a car under the influence and kill someone, your butt goes straight to jail. You want to do drugs? IMO, that should be your business - unless you make it "our" business by infringing on someone else's right to their life / limb / liberty / property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 So, why not dictate what food and how much food they need as well? How far will you go with this? Ever tried living on food stamps? A friend of mine went through some serious mental illness and had no choice but to go on social assistance for almost 2 years. How much did she make? Less than 400$ a month. She was barley able to pay for rent and groceries (Try looking for a decent place for less than 400$ in a big city). Where people get the idea that welfare recipients are somehow "leeching" off the system blows my mind. There are tons of cases here where women with children (many of whom who require assistance due to spousal abuse, unemployment, and so on) received less than 600$ a month. Some of these women have even gone as far as suicide because social assistance was not enough. For a bunch of pro-capitalist anti-government types here, the totalitarian logic seems to be on par with their communist adversaries. so because i dont feel people should be gettign {censored}ed up off my tax money im the bad guy? sorry, but i hoesntly dont care about your friend, nor anyone else. if you need help, cool, but people milk the {censored} ouit of welfare. if you cant survive on your own i say tough {censored}. same views on the homelss population. hand outs are pathetic. there should be a limit to how long youre on welfare. if youre capable of getting a job, you need to be looking fora job. if you have 10 plus kids, youre own fault for being an idiot. if youre not capable of doing work because of mental issues, get locked up or become a lab rat and make money that way. there is no excuse for being a disease on society. if my lazy self can work a job then there is no reason for anyone to make excuses. now, less than 400 a month. that sucks, but its free money. i dont feel sorry for anyone who gets free money. you shouldnt be looking for the best place you can afford. you should be looking for THE place you can afford. if you want better, get your {censored} straight, find the help you need to get right and make it happen. i have had friends who have sunk to low depths, never went on welfare and lead decent lives. and they had a lot more than mental health issues. its called will. if you have will, there is a way. bringing up someone who commits suicide because people will not lend a hand is not only laughable, but just absurd. i am a very heartless {censored} when it comes to this kind of {censored}. more than likely if she killed herself, shes better off. that might sound cruel and mean but humans need a kick in the ass. there are people in other countries with far worse conditions not getting {censored} living off the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Operator Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 The other flaw is that if. We weren't locking up millions for nonviolent crimes, we'd have to, like, give them jobs. And that's in addition to the 9-10% unemployed right now (excluding the underemployed and those who have run out of benefits and can no longer claim) that the wealthy are supposedly going to fix with all the extra revenue from their decade of tax breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 Yup. Everybody. And not just drugs. Cigarettes kill more people than illegal drugs, so we're going to start testing you for those too - you're making our health insurance costs go up, and we want "more" than the huge extra tax we've already placed on your substance of choice. The health risks concerning alcohol are a big issue for some people, so we'll need to go after those who drink beer, wine and spirits too. Oh, and I'm sorry, but you're 20lbs overweight, and the jelly donut police say you've had enough food for the day... If the law was written the right way, and if some of the savings was spent on drug rehabilitation and education programs, as a libertarian-leaning individual, I would likely support that. But if you get in a car under the influence and kill someone, your butt goes straight to jail. You want to do drugs? IMO, that should be your business - unless you make it "our" business by infringing on someone else's right to their life / limb / liberty / property. agree 100 percent with this. if you want to {censored} your life up on hard {censored}. by all means do it. if it only effects you then word. but if youre dumb and get in a car and kill someone im all about putting my tax money towards making sure you get shanked in a prison cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members misterstomach Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 there sure are a lot of things about how this country is run that i despise, but there are quite a few rights guaranteed to people in the constitution as members of a free society. while this doesn't work out a lot of times, i pretty much agree with these rights and think they are an important part for the backbone of a just and free society. (i don't actually think the end result has given us a totally free and just society here, but the principles are still important to me.) one of these rights is that a people are free from unwarranted searches and seizures and invasions of their privacy without probable cause that they have committed a crime. i'm no lawyer, but to me, in principle, a mandatory drug test would fall under this category. being poor is simply not probable cause that one has committed a crime and it's pretty scary to think of living under a system in which it was. i agree that there's lots of abuse of assistance programs. but there are also many many people who genuinely need the help and use it as intended. often these people use it temporarily and it allows them to get back on their feet and become self sufficient again without losing their house and car and having themselves or their family go hungry. it would be nice to end the abuse of the system, but we simply cannot afford to start throwing out basic human rights in order to achieve this end and subjecting the many legitimate users of assistance programs to restricted human rights and dignity. if you've never really needed food stamps or anything, it's hard to imagine being in that position or to understand the realities of getting by with them. and if you start throwing those rights out the window here, where does it stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 I would predict a significant rise in violent crime if this were ever to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 It would be far less expensive to foot the bill for urine tests as welfare recipient rates would fall dramatically. Yr exactly right. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean drug problems will fall dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members placebo62 Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 While we're at it, should people with drug dependancies be allowed to have children? Should they have to pass a test first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Operator Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 I would hate to live in the country crohny is in charge of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 there sure are a lot of things about how this country is run that i despise, but there are quite a few rights guaranteed to people in the constitution as members of a free society. while this doesn't work out a lot of times, i pretty much agree with these rights and think they are an important part for the backbone of a just and free society. (i don't actually think the end result has given us a totally free and just society here, but the principles are still important to me.) one of these rights is that a people are free from unwarranted searches and seizures and invasions of their privacy without probable cause that they have committed a crime. i'm no lawyer, but to me, in principle, a mandatory drug test would fall under this category. being poor is simply not probable cause that one has committed a crime and it's pretty scary to think of living under a system in which it was. i agree that there's lots of abuse of assistance programs. but there are also many many people who genuinely need the help and use it as intended. often these people use it temporarily and it allows them to get back on their feet and become self sufficient again without losing their house and car and having themselves or their family go hungry. it would be nice to end the abuse of the system, but we simply cannot afford to start throwing out basic human rights in order to achieve this end and subjecting the many legitimate users of assistance programs to restricted human rights and dignity. if you've never really needed food stamps or anything, it's hard to imagine being in that position or to understand the realities of getting by with them. and if you start throwing those rights out the window here, where does it stop? i dig this but they arent being seen as criminals. they are being seen as a person who needs help and in accepting that help should stick to some guidlines in order to need such help. if i was in need of welfare and they said no smoking weed or drinking or so on, id buckle down and get my {censored} in check. if not, then you dont need help if youre worried about getting {censored}ed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 While we're at it, should people with drug dependancies be allowed to have children? Should they have to pass a test first? Yup - you'll need to take a test before you can reproduce, and also one to be allowed to continue breathing... wait, this is starting to sound like Europe in the early 40s... IOW, this stuff is pretty slippery slope IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CicadaSilence Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 Yes. But only for pharmaceuticals. If you don't have a prescription and they find Vicodin or Oxycontin or some such in your system, they should send you to a doctor so you can get a script. Unless you're abusing them for fun. In which case, they should submit your name for a casting call for a reality TV show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 I would hate to live in the country crohny is in charge of. dude, if i ran a country itd be full of animals worht a {censored}. meaning no humans. that country would be bad ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 While we're at it, should people with drug dependancies be allowed to have children? Should they have to pass a test first? Actually, I can get behind this. But it should not be a drug test. More of an "are you an idiot?" test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 If the law was written the right way, and if some of the savings was spent on drug rehabilitation and education programs, as a libertarian-leaning individual, I would likely support that. But if you get in a car under the influence and kill someone, your butt goes straight to jail. You want to do drugs? IMO, that should be your business - unless you make it "our" business by infringing on someone else's right to their life / limb / liberty / property. With all due respect, you know I love you right, Phil? Spending savings on rehabilitation and education programs isn't exactly a "libertarian" ideal. The libertarian ideal would be that savings becomes lower taxes... Unless you meant even with your libertarian-leanings you'd support that, but then I'd argue that you aren't as libertarian as you may think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 Wouldn't the libertarian ideal not involve wellfare at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members misterstomach Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 i dig this but they arent being seen as criminals. they are being seen as a person who needs help and in accepting that help should stick to some guidlines in order to need such help. if i was in need of welfare and they said no smoking weed or drinking or so on, id buckle down and get my {censored} in check. if not, then you dont need help if youre worried about getting {censored}ed up. actually, the thing is that you're also expected to stick to those same guidelines just for living here. everyone is. to start testing people is to assume that they're breaking the law. why the {censored} should you assume that i'm using drugs just because the economy is {censored}ed and i can't afford groceries. the expectation is equal upon everyone that they're going to follow the law, but it would be pretty {censored}ed for them to just come start testing you to make sure. i don't do any illegal drugs, except on a very very occasional basis, and i don't pay for them, but i guess another part of my position is that i don't think they should be illegal. you said you smoke weed, so you would be a {censored}ing hypocrite to say you think they should be illegal. maybe you just think that it should be illegal for poor people? your previous post which was so hateful towards the poor pretty much makes me write you off anyway, but you should think about trying to understand just a little bit of the realities of poverty, what it's like, and why it happens for so many people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lucid origami Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 Wouldn't the libertarian ideal not involve wellfare at all? You can use bootstraps when shooting up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 Wouldn't the libertarian ideal not involve wellfare at all? It doesn't because it contradicts smaller government and lower taxes. Welfare is an externality in the domain of churches and nonprofits, that is in order to be a true libertarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IRG Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 The problem with drug testing is also this. By forcing people to do so, you are assuming that they are guilty first, and the only way to prove you are innocent is to take said drug test. I can see drug testing for people who have responsibilities for others, bus drivers, pilots, etc. I don't like it for anyone else who have done nothing wrong in the first place, whether they get govt assistance or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lou Speed Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 MOTHER{censored}ING FLOOR BOXES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 actually, the thing is that you're also expected to stick to those same guidelines just for living here. everyone is. to start testing people is to assume that they're breaking the law. why the {censored} should you assume that i'm using drugs just because the economy is {censored}ed and i can't afford groceries. the expectation is equal upon everyone that they're going to follow the law, but it would be pretty {censored}ed for them to just come start testing you to make sure. i don't do any illegal drugs, except on a very very occasional basis, and i don't pay for them, but i guess another part of my position is that i don't think they should be illegal. you said you smoke weed, so you would be a {censored}ing hypocrite to say you think they should be illegal. maybe you just think that it should be illegal for poor people? your previous post which was so hateful towards the poor pretty much makes me write you off anyway, but you should think about trying to understand just a little bit of the realities of poverty, what it's like, and why it happens for so many people here. i dont think it should be illegal by any means. i think everything should be legal. that has nothing to do with it though. i stated id be down to help someone, if they are willing to help themselves. getting {censored}ed up is not helping yourself. more people get {censored}ed up to escape the reality of their problems. you need to face them and move on. get {censored}ed up when you can actually afford it. write me off. i dont really give a {censored}. i understand a lot about poverity in this country. a lot like when you have people who go and get houses they cant afford and start pilling up debt and then find themselves {censored}ed. people sit and go oh the banks are wrong. yes, but so is the idiot signing the mortgage. people with mental health issues, or injuries that dont allow them to work, there are ways around it. not all jobs require you to do {censored} physically. look at telemarketing. i have a very hateful look on humans in general. we can sit and slauhgter animals. have all these factory slaughter houses. decide what species deserves to have a specific amount of their kind alive, and its ok to destory nature and this and that. when it comes to humans though oh no. we need to bow the {censored} down and help one another. im sorry, but im not a bitch. ive dealt with a lot in my time. so have a good portion of my friends. i have had friends go broke and have to take to the streets. they foudn their way to a job and back into a legit home. they did what they needed to. they didnt harm others to do it. didnt sit take hand outs. if they took money they paid it back. i could give a {censored} less what you think about me and my views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 The problem with drug testing is also this. By forcing people to do so, you are assuming that they are guilty first, and the only way to prove you are innocent is to take said drug test. I can see drug testing for people who have responsibilities for others, bus drivers, pilots, etc. I don't like it for anyone else who have done nothing wrong in the first place, whether they get govt assistance or not. This. The notion is also yet another way to drive a wedge between people who'd otherwise have very similar socio-economic interests. Divide and conquer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlackCustom Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 so because i dont feel people should be gettign {censored}ed up off my tax money im the bad guy? sorry, but i hoesntly dont care about your friend, nor anyone else. if you need help, cool, but people milk the {censored} ouit of welfare. if you cant survive on your own i say tough {censored}. same views on the homelss population. hand outs are pathetic. there should be a limit to how long youre on welfare. if youre capable of getting a job, you need to be looking fora job. if you have 10 plus kids, youre own fault for being an idiot. if youre not capable of doing work because of mental issues, get locked up or become a lab rat and make money that way. there is no excuse for being a disease on society. if my lazy self can work a job then there is no reason for anyone to make excuses. now, less than 400 a month. that sucks, but its free money. i dont feel sorry for anyone who gets free money. you shouldnt be looking for the best place you can afford. you should be looking for THE place you can afford. if you want better, get your {censored} straight, find the help you need to get right and make it happen. i have had friends who have sunk to low depths, never went on welfare and lead decent lives. and they had a lot more than mental health issues. its called will. if you have will, there is a way. bringing up someone who commits suicide because people will not lend a hand is not only laughable, but just absurd. i am a very heartless {censored} when it comes to this kind of {censored}. more than likely if she killed herself, shes better off. that might sound cruel and mean but humans need a kick in the ass. there are people in other countries with far worse conditions not getting {censored} living off the land. Your cruelty is impressive. "if you cant survive on your own i say tough {censored}" - I wonder if you would feel the same way of you were to get sick or injured... "there should be a limit to how long youre on welfare" - there is a limit, and recipients have to prove they need assistance after the initial determination. "if you have 10 plus kids, youre own fault for being an idiot" - I suppose the it's the 10 kids' fault as well, because they are also screwed. "if youre not capable of doing work because of mental issues, get locked up or become a lab rat and make money that way." - Mental illness is a disease, does the same thing go for folks who can't work because of cancer or other illness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.