Don't Drug Test Welfare Reciepients?!

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

What crime, other than possession, is associated with drug use? Any crime supposedly associated with drug use is due to them being illegal. It could also be related to the when X is outlawed, only outlaws will X phenomenon.[/quote]
Theft, for one. Crackheads need money so they have sticky fingers and they will steal anything even, in my case, a garbage can. Next question. [/quote]

The cost of drugs is greatly increased by the war on drugs. Those willing to steal are not deterred from drug use by laws. Not only that, a drug using thief can get his sentence reduced by snitching on those he purchased drugs from. The drug user also has a built-in excuse to society for his theft. He’s no longer a normal low-life, he’s now a victim of those nasty old drug dealers-they’re the problem, not him.

Let’s say I like to eat chocolate, but I know eating too much chocolate will make me too unhealthy to purchase more. What are the chances I’m going to eat so much I turn in to… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8iuHKbcXk ?

Now, let’s say I do eat myself out of employability. Am I going to steal chocolate? Possibly, but I’m going to get myself killed or arrested pretty quickly. And since I’m stealing for no reason, my sentence is going to be harsh-I’m nothing but a low-life thief. But wait, the Lord of the Manor decides to outlaw chocolate. Now the Lord of the Manor can either hold me in jail forever, for the crime of possessing chocolate, or release me with a criminal record. This further decreases my employability and I am forced to continue stealing to support my habit. However, next time I’m caught stealing, I can snitch on the man who sold me the chocolate, as well as other chocolate users. The Lord of the Manor will then allow me to serve either no, or a very light sentence. I’m now a victim of my “addiction,” not a real criminal.

Before, there was a high risk-high reward relationship between my theft and chocolate use. Now, there is a low risk-high reward relationship between the two.

*I am aware that the man in the video would obviously not be worried about eating himself out of employability…but how many hims are there?[/quote]

I can’t believe I agree with Nic

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Under Nixon drug addiction was treated as an illness and it worked to reduce addiction as well the crime related to drug use. More funding when to treatment than law enforcement. Reagan changed that with his whole “Just Say No” BS and CIA support of the Sicilian Mafia which controlled the heroin trade. It’s no coincidence that the shutdown of heroin clinics coincided with the rise of the Corleone mafia. [/quote]

Nixon is the one who created “the war on drugs”. All Reagan did was expand it.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Under Nixon drug addiction was treated as an illness and it worked to reduce addiction as well the crime related to drug use. More funding when to treatment than law enforcement. Reagan changed that with his whole “Just Say No” BS and CIA support of the Sicilian Mafia which controlled the heroin trade. It’s no coincidence that the shutdown of heroin clinics coincided with the rise of the Corleone mafia. [/quote]

Nixon is the one who created “the war on drugs”. All Reagan did was expand it. [/quote]
Ahhhh, but how it was fought changed.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

What crime, other than possession, is associated with drug use? Any crime supposedly associated with drug use is due to them being illegal. It could also be related to the when X is outlawed, only outlaws will X phenomenon.[/quote]
Theft, for one. Crackheads need money so they have sticky fingers and they will steal anything even, in my case, a garbage can. Next question. [/quote]

The cost of drugs is greatly increased by the war on drugs. Those willing to steal are not deterred from drug use by laws. Not only that, a drug using thief can get his sentence reduced by snitching on those he purchased drugs from. The drug user also has a built-in excuse to society for his theft. He’s no longer a normal low-life, he’s now a victim of those nasty old drug dealers-they’re the problem, not him.

Let’s say I like to eat chocolate, but I know eating too much chocolate will make me too unhealthy to purchase more. What are the chances I’m going to eat so much I turn in to… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8iuHKbcXk ?

Now, let’s say I do eat myself out of employability. Am I going to steal chocolate? Possibly, but I’m going to get myself killed or arrested pretty quickly. And since I’m stealing for no reason, my sentence is going to be harsh-I’m nothing but a low-life thief. But wait, the Lord of the Manor decides to outlaw chocolate. Now the Lord of the Manor can either hold me in jail forever, for the crime of possessing chocolate, or release me with a criminal record. This further decreases my employability and I am forced to continue stealing to support my habit. However, next time I’m caught stealing, I can snitch on the man who sold me the chocolate, as well as other chocolate users. The Lord of the Manor will then allow me to serve either no, or a very light sentence. I’m now a victim of my “addiction,” not a real criminal.

Before, there was a high risk-high reward relationship between my theft and chocolate use. Now, there is a low risk-high reward relationship between the two.

*I am aware that the man in the video would obviously not be worried about eating himself out of employability…but how many hims are there?[/quote]
And what does any of this have to do with crime going down when drug treatment is available?

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And what does any of this have to do with crime going down when drug treatment is available? [/quote]

Drug treatment IS available. The funny thing about crime statistics is that they can reflect whatever is desired. If I criminalize home ownership, home ownership is suddenly going to be strongly correlated with crime.

The government does not need to be involved in what people do with their bodies. If people want drug treatment, they will get it. If people don’t want drug treatment, but don’t commit actual crimes, then who cares? If people don’t want drug treatment, but commit actual crimes in order to get drugs, then punish them for the actual crime.

I would rather have welfare recipients work a certain amount of hours a week doing community projects.

To get their check they have to give their time back.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I would rather have welfare recipients work a certain amount of hours a week doing community projects.

To get their check they have to give their time back.[/quote]

I like this. Although I’m sure some welfare recievers cannot work (physically and mentally disabled). Still the able bodied people who receive could give something back. Then again setting that up is also going to cost money :slight_smile:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I would rather have welfare recipients work a certain amount of hours a week doing community projects.

To get their check they have to give their time back.[/quote]

I like this. Although I’m sure some welfare recievers cannot work (physically and mentally disabled). Still the able bodied people who receive could give something back. Then again setting that up is also going to cost money :)[/quote]

But at least something good will come of it…and it will discourage those that just want a free ride.

If they learn a skill or trade in the process, so much the better.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Now, let’s say I do eat myself out of employability. Am I going to steal chocolate? Possibly, but I’m going to get myself killed or arrested pretty quickly. And since I’m stealing for no reason, my sentence is going to be harsh-I’m nothing but a low-life thief. But wait, the Lord of the Manor decides to outlaw chocolate. Now the Lord of the Manor can either hold me in jail forever, for the crime of possessing chocolate, or release me with a criminal record. This further decreases my employability and I am forced to continue stealing to support my habit. However, next time I’m caught stealing, I can snitch on the man who sold me the chocolate, as well as other chocolate users. The Lord of the Manor will then allow me to serve either no, or a very light sentence. I’m now a victim of my “addiction,” not a real criminal.

Before, there was a high risk-high reward relationship between my theft and chocolate use. Now, there is a low risk-high reward relationship between the two.

*I am aware that the man in the video would obviously not be worried about eating himself out of employability…but how many hims are there?[/quote]

I can’t believe I agree with Nic
[/quote]

Third. It’s too logical though :slight_smile:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And what does any of this have to do with crime going down when drug treatment is available? [/quote]

Drug treatment IS available. The funny thing about crime statistics is that they can reflect whatever is desired. If I criminalize home ownership, home ownership is suddenly going to be strongly correlated with crime.

The government does not need to be involved in what people do with their bodies. If people want drug treatment, they will get it. If people don’t want drug treatment, but don’t commit actual crimes, then who cares? If people don’t want drug treatment, but commit actual crimes in order to get drugs, then punish them for the actual crime.[/quote]
The one question that makes your post irrelevant is: who pays for it?

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The one question that makes your post irrelevant is: who pays for it? [/quote]

Who pays for what? Who pays for a Snickers bar? Who pays for a kid to go to football camp? Who pays for a car? Who pays for a house? The person who chooses to do so. That’s really my answer regardless of what ‘it’ is.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I would rather have welfare recipients work a certain amount of hours a week doing community projects.

To get their check they have to give their time back.[/quote]

Wouldn’t that be OH MY GAWD , COMMUNISM ? and I would be in favor of that too

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The one question that makes your post irrelevant is: who pays for it? [/quote]

Who pays for what? Who pays for a Snickers bar? Who pays for a kid to go to football camp? Who pays for a car? Who pays for a house? The person who chooses to do so. That’s really my answer regardless of what ‘it’ is. [/quote]
OK, but you do know we were talking about where the funds for the drug war are going? Some to treatment and some to law enforcement. If you want to make the argument that we shouldn’t be funding a drug war in the first place then that is a different argument. As it stands, when more funds went to treatment vs enforcement, it was more effectively fought.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
OK, but you do know we were talking about where the funds for the drug war are going? Some to treatment and some to law enforcement. If you want to make the argument that we shouldn’t be funding a drug war in the first place then that is a different argument. As it stands, when more funds went to treatment vs enforcement, it was more effectively fought. [/quote]

Then I misunderstood the argument, and thought the debate was over the drug war, in general. I will agree that funds would be more effectively/less immorally used to fund treatment, but arguing treatment vs. enforcement in the “drug war”(and with public funds) is like arguing about whether I am better off if my leg is chopped off one inch vs. two inches above my knee. Both options suck.

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Now, let’s say I do eat myself out of employability. Am I going to steal chocolate? Possibly, but I’m going to get myself killed or arrested pretty quickly. And since I’m stealing for no reason, my sentence is going to be harsh-I’m nothing but a low-life thief. But wait, the Lord of the Manor decides to outlaw chocolate. Now the Lord of the Manor can either hold me in jail forever, for the crime of possessing chocolate, or release me with a criminal record. This further decreases my employability and I am forced to continue stealing to support my habit. However, next time I’m caught stealing, I can snitch on the man who sold me the chocolate, as well as other chocolate users. The Lord of the Manor will then allow me to serve either no, or a very light sentence. I’m now a victim of my “addiction,” not a real criminal.

Before, there was a high risk-high reward relationship between my theft and chocolate use. Now, there is a low risk-high reward relationship between the two.

*I am aware that the man in the video would obviously not be worried about eating himself out of employability…but how many hims are there?[/quote]

I can’t believe I agree with Nic
[/quote]

Third. It’s too logical though :)[/quote]

Your fucking right ???

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I would rather have welfare recipients work a certain amount of hours a week doing community projects.

To get their check they have to give their time back.[/quote]

I like this. Although I’m sure some welfare recievers cannot work (physically and mentally disabled). Still the able bodied people who receive could give something back. Then again setting that up is also going to cost money :)[/quote]

But at least something good will come of it…and it will discourage those that just want a free ride.

If they learn a skill or trade in the process, so much the better.[/quote]

I like that. I mean, we’re already paying asinine amounts for new healthcare enrollees right? Didn’t I hear in Oregon we ended up paying something like a quarter million dollars for each Obamacare enrollee when the numbers were crunched in relation to the budget they received?

Better if we’re going to waste money then there at least be a small return on investment in the way of community service or trade-learning. That may eventually pay itself forward enough to break even in the big schemes if people can get work. Or decrease benefits but guarantee free schooling in trades IF they have a C average–that way you mitigate the cost of sending them to school, simultaneously lessen the incentive to stay on welfare indefinitely, and also get them educated and incentivized to work at a job that pays them more when they finish trade school.

Regarding drug testing. I think it has benefits and I think the effectiveness also depends on the target state. For instance in Kansas you might not have enough people on the dole to make the cost anywhere near effective for setting up an entire drug testing program statewide, but in New York or California the great population numbers and large welfare numbers might make it more effective.

Second, and something to think about, is it might be acceptable to deal with the short term financial loss of comprehensive drug testing if you put the “fear of God” into the people you are testing. In other words: go with it, test everyone, kick everyone off that doesn’t pass 3 tests in a row with 1 warning after the first fail, and then gradually ramp it down to “random” testing of a random sample of people after a couple years. I’m just thinking out loud really, but that might enable us to get the worst out, drastically decrease the rate of abuse, and also eventually reduce the costs of spending when you are not testing as many people in the future.

Sort of a “spend money to make money” thing. I dunno.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
America IMO is way too punitive in many areas including drug policy . [/quote]

Holy shit we agree on something.

:wink:

Hope your holidays were good pitt

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I would rather have welfare recipients work a certain amount of hours a week doing community projects.

To get their check they have to give their time back.[/quote]

Wouldn’t that be OH MY GAWD , COMMUNISM ? and I would be in favor of that too
[/quote]

Nah, it is more of an investment than communism. They are getting paid, earning their money and allowed to spend it in the free market.

Likely inefficient, but better than just handing over cash.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I would rather have welfare recipients work a certain amount of hours a week doing community projects.

To get their check they have to give their time back.[/quote]

Wouldn’t that be OH MY GAWD , COMMUNISM ? and I would be in favor of that too
[/quote]

Nah, it is more of an investment than communism. They are getting paid, earning their money and allowed to spend it in the free market.

Likely inefficient, but better than just handing over cash. [/quote]

I agree. Along the same lines “Building the Deathstar” article I posted somewhere or another.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I would rather have welfare recipients work a certain amount of hours a week doing community projects.

To get their check they have to give their time back.[/quote]

I like this. Although I’m sure some welfare recievers cannot work (physically and mentally disabled). Still the able bodied people who receive could give something back. Then again setting that up is also going to cost money :)[/quote]

Regarding drug testing. I think it has benefits and I think the effectiveness also depends on the target state. For instance in Kansas you might not have enough people on the dole to make the cost anywhere near effective for setting up an entire drug testing program statewide, but in New York or California the great population numbers and large welfare numbers might make it more effective.
[/quote]

You may want to look at a high population state like Florida to see how ineffective it has been there.

I get what you’re saying with the other points (I clipped them), but if you’re going to spend a shit ton and catch a few/scare a few I think the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t come anywhere near close. You’re always going to have a few people who figure out how to game the system. I’d feel differently if we were catching massive amounts of welfare drug users but based on anything I can see we just aren’t catching enough to make it anywhere near the massive costs.

The thing about Kansas being run by insanely far righties though…we don’t have to have enough poor drug users on the dole. Our politicians are so far off the reservation I bet they think they will catch 100% of welfare recipients. We aren’t above spending millions to try and “purify” the state (see voter fraud, abortion lawsuits, drug testing welfare, all those problems that didn’t exist before Brownback became governor…we’re spending big money to stop them).

Maybe next we will look at a missile defense system for the state? Maybe our increased property taxes can help fund it. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it isn’t a damn good idea!