View Full Version : Drug Tests for Welfare....
The State of Florida just passed Legislation requiring people who apply for Welfare/Assistance to take a Drug Test.....
Anyone's thoughts?
what wid happen if they tested positive?
NickInTheNorth
03-Jul-11, 14:30
The State of Florida just passed Legislation requiring people who apply for Welfare/Assistance to take a Drug Test.....
Anyone's thoughts?
Don't see why they have any more right to do that than to test anyone that drives along a road provided by the state.
The welfare payment presumably is given to alleviate hardship, as such I doubt there is much "spare money" so what is the point of the test, are they seriously going to cut the money provided if there is a positive test? Sounds like typical american ineffective over-reaction to the drugs problem. I cannot see that any loss of welfare payment if that is the plan will stop the use of drugs.
what wid happen if they tested positive?
Welfare is denied...The theory is that why should the 'people' pay for Drugs!
They will offer them rehab programs...........
NickInTheNorth
03-Jul-11, 14:49
and crime will rise to pay for the welfare shortfall, mainly burglary, prostitution and ironically drug dealing...
and crime will rise to pay for the welfare shortfall, mainly burglary, prostitution and ironically drug dealing...
We/they gotta start somewhere!
NickInTheNorth
03-Jul-11, 15:03
but in general the people hurt by welfare cuts are kids, not addicts. Why not give food stamps or similar to try and ensure the "money" is used for what it should be. Welfare cuts are an easy option to look tough on drugs, or look good on spending cuts but in reality achieve nothing other than hurting those the welfare system is designed to help.
I hate drugs passionately, but this is a stupid idea done for political window dressing and not to stop drugs use.
I would applaud any administration anywhere that wanted to cut its welfare budget simply because it can't afford it if they were honest enough to admit that is what they are doing. But this is noting but a pathetic gesture intended to gratify the tea party and ensure re-election of an extreme right wing government in Florida.
The reason they do not give food stamps or similar is they get exchanged for - money,drugs etc, and usually for a much lower value than the issue cost.
If they ensured the children/families were given cooked meals everyday it would be more beneficial to the children - back to the work/poorhouse era.
We/they gotta start somewhere!
yeah, but can ye see how it wid open a whole can o' worms??
its a fact that cannibis, marajuana stays in 'e system for up til 30 days where as yer harder stuff, smack...cocaine...LSD...ecstacy stays for only a couple o' days.
'iss means that 'e cheil who leks til sit back wi' his recreational bit o' afgan, is more lekly til test positive than someone who snorts pooder at 'e weekend, an' puts all sorts intil their system.
some mite say no difference, drugs is drugs...but a person who leks til chill wi' his bong or whativer, is lekly til be....indoors, chillin wi' his bong, no oot causin trouble in 'e street.
Points well taken....But methinks something must be done....many things have been tried and failed....perhaps a new idea/shock therapy/ who knows.
Some years ago I was delivering food hampers to the needy at Xmas. I went to this house and the door was opened by a Biggggg Biker. He and his buddies were partying inside, and had the biggest TV I had seen. When I told him why I was there he brushed me off and said...take it to the back door!
Went there and a sick looking woman answere the door with a couple of kids and she was in tears...thanked me so much for the kindness.....what does one do?
Yes I know........but that is illegal!
oldmarine
03-Jul-11, 15:24
What the heck, our nation is becoming a welfare center. Everyone is discovering they can live off the government. What happens when the nation runs out of funds? They just borrow more money until they go broke. Then the nation will fail. Many years ago a person predicted that when a democracy gets corrupt it will fail. I believe we are now observing that happening.
Methinks we are all in the same decline.....we seem to be ok but things are being cut back/ we do depend so much on your Country!
Most of our exports go South!
I would advocate random drug testing on all employees as mandatory, Bus drivers , Ferry Crews, Tour guides, are 3 examples I know of who have this done on a regular basis, with instant dismissal if tested possitive.
Some work places in the US have mandatory, random drug testing. I'm not sure if I agree with either, but there's a general opinion around today about people on benefits/welfare being lazy and somewhat sub-human so the idea will probably spread.
weezer 316
03-Jul-11, 18:00
Pretty ludicrous. But then thats the US (and UK) policy to drugs full stop. Ignore evidence just base it all on dogma.
So tell us what would succeed?
John Little
03-Jul-11, 18:46
Legalise the lot- ultimate freedom. Less work for the cops etc - no business for crime lords, licensing, tax revenue etc...
Some employers in Britain do carry out drug testing pre-employment and on existing employees. However, there have been problems:
" ... People who were interviewed for posts with cabling firm Sanmina were then escorted outside Greenock Jobcentre by staff from Pertemps for mouth swabs to be taken - as cars drove past and pedestrians walked by. The tests were taken outside the Jobcentre because Pertemps did not have permission to conduct them inside during interviews. One jobhunter said: "I had my interview and tests and then the person from Pertemps told me they'd carry out a drugs test. She put her coat on and I followed, then we were outside the building, which I thought was strange. Then she handed me the swab to put in my mouth. I didn't want to do it but went along with it because I needed the job - I was totally embarrassed. People were walking by and it was yards away from the main road." ... "
and
" ... A former worker with Amazon was awarded £3,453 in compensation after managers at the internet giant falsely told him he had tested positive for amphetamine and fired him. Khalid Elkhader was shocked when a random test was returned positive. He appealed and was asked to take a second test. Amazon claimed the test was also positive, and dismissed him for misconduct. It was only after he took Amazon to a tribunal that he learned the second test had actually been negative. He was awarded with compensation after the Glasgow tribunal ruled his sacking was unfair. Khalid was fired after working with the company for two years. The tribunal heard how he had tried to get the second sample tested by his own doctor, and arranged for it to be sent it to the lab. By the time a courier had arrived to collect the sample it was too late and it had been destroyed. He then arranged for his own doctor to take a sample, which was also negative. ... "
Also there are privacy issues, such as " ... Workers should also be entitled to privacy when giving a sample. The privacy issue is more commonly an issue when urine samples are used. Some employers have argued that another person should be in the room when a person is giving a sample to make sure it is not substituted or diluted. This is unreasonable, and a breach of human rights. In addition a number of people have an inability to pass urine in front of another person. ... ".
Source:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace/tuc-18000-f0.cfm
The Urine thingy is done across North America for people who are on Methadone. Used to be done in the presence of a Nurse but now done in the privacy of a room/cubicle which is video taped.....Acceptable practice and can only be viewed by employee of said Clinic. Actually works well.
Drugs aren't really my thing (that includes alcohol) I've tried a few though. That being said I'd say their legalisation probably is the best way forward, it would bring it all out into the open. The government would get tax income, you'd probably generate a few businesses and jobs, it would destroy or severely cripple a lot of the criminal element involved with them, it would remove the stigma associated with them so the people that needed it could get treatment and keep their jobs, it would remove a lot of non-violent 'criminals' from prison.
I'm really not happy with the privacy and civil liberties implications of drug testing either.
The government would get tax income,
Are you jokong, its dear enough anyway, before having to pay tax on it.
Are you jokong, its dear enough anyway, before having to pay tax on it.
Part of the cost of drugs I imagine is because of the illegality, to work out what an expected price would be I'd guess comparing it to other countries where they have been legalised would be a good idea.
weezer 316
04-Jul-11, 08:47
Are you jokong, its dear enough anyway, before having to pay tax on it.
That's because every had it passes through between its source and here adds a bit on. A business I am sure would slash the cost of drugs.
On the downside they become more available. Although lets face it, availability isnt an issue is it. You can get anything bar crack cocaine in caithness (im pretty sure I could cook it!) but you cant get a macdonalds or a subway. So amazingly the sconomics make it viable for drugs to appear but not a happy meal.
Legalise the lot. It will cause far less damage.
Legalise the lot. It will cause far less damage.
Alcohol is legal!! look at the number of drunk drivers that there are. Make all drugs legal and let the junkies loose on the road, it would be chaos.
Alcohol is legal!! look at the number of drunk drivers that there are. Make all drugs legal and let the junkies loose on the road, it would be chaos.
Well arguably (scientifically) alcohol is more dangerous than a lot of other drugs and any driving under the influence legislation would expand to include anything legalised. Not all drugs affect hand and eye coordination or perception either. That's an argument to ban alcohol more than anything else.
I'd argue that part of the problem is that driving offences aren't as stigmatised as other crimes but that's a different discussion.
weezer 316
04-Jul-11, 10:06
Alcohol is legal!! look at the number of drunk drivers that there are. Make all drugs legal and let the junkies loose on the road, it would be chaos.
Well said RecQuery.
What exactly is stopping people who snorted cocaine driving at present?? Infact give me someone who has done 5 lines of coke behind the wheel over someone who has had 5 drams any day!
Alcohol is the worst drug in the world. Bar none. 50 000 people a year die from its affects in this country and it causes untold social chaos. Perhaps you can tell me why you back this and not say, ecstacy being legal seeing as it barely kills a soul?
For example, the report mentioned below from Prof parrot, a backer of harsh drug laws, says that "ecstasy caused 40-70 deaths per year in the UK". Less, I believe, than cycling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/02/ecstasy_risks.html
edited as I dont want to start another rammy!
Perhaps you can tell me why you back this and not say, ecstacy being legal seeing as it barely kills a soul?
maybe your facts are not up to date
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/two-men-die-after-taking-extra-strong-ecstasy-pills-1.1110059
weezer 316
04-Jul-11, 10:53
maybe your facts are not up to date
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/two-men-die-after-taking-extra-strong-ecstasy-pills-1.1110059
Right well I await the post mortem (leah betts springs to mind, died from drinking 7 litres of water in about 75 minutes) but the point remains.......2 PEOPLE!!! Id bet money on it being something like talcum powder or detergent that its cut with that has caused the damage, not MDMA.
Wonder how many people died form alcohol this weekend? 100? 200?
Stop rehashing headlines. Educate yourself on drugs. The facts are pretty clear. You would have to be high to get them wrong.
I would advocate random drug testing on all employees as mandatory, Bus drivers , Ferry Crews, Tour guides, are 3 examples I know of who have this done on a regular basis, with instant dismissal if tested possitive.
My OH, is an AB. They get randomly drugs tested. Also instant dismissal, if a positive.
I would advocate random drug testing on all employees as mandatory, Bus drivers , Ferry Crews, Tour guides, are 3 examples I know of who have this done on a regular basis, with instant dismissal if tested possitive.My youngest son works on software for aircraft, he is subject to unannounced drug tests; instant dismissal if positive
My youngest son works on software for aircraft, he is subject to unannounced drug tests; instant dismissal if positive
I wonder why your sons company would have this testing in place bekisman? Maybe just maybe, it is because his work would be affected if under the influence, but as posted by weezer I need to get educated on drugs. Having spent a few years on my life, chasing and catching druggies & junkies, and enjoying my job doing it :lol: I think I have all the education I need.
Why not test for alcohol, tobacco or prescription medication?
I think you'll find the real reason is that because they are illegal someone could be manipulated, maybe it's for no good reason at all. You can be as derisive as you want, science doesn't care; it cares not for your opinion.
I say this as someone who doesn't care for drugs.
Why not test for alcohol, tobacco or prescription medication?.
Why would they test for tobacco
You are liable to be tested for alchohol and/or drugs prior to boarding a helicopter bound for an oil rig in the UK sector.
I think DSRL may have binned the random testing in Dounreay though, I hear the site would be seriously short staffed if the kept it up!
Why would they test for tobacco
You are liable to be tested for alchohol and/or drugs prior to boarding a helicopter bound for an oil rig in the UK sector.
I think DSRL may have binned the random testing in Dounreay though, I hear the site would be seriously short staffed if the kept it up!
That was my point I suppose, why test for one substance and not another. It seems completely arbitrary to me.
That was my point I suppose, why test for one substance and not another. It seems completely arbitrary to me.
I guess they dont perform tobacco checks is because you are still deemed to be in full control of you facalties when using it.
However the first fag of the day havs been known to give a niccotine rush, and if you are hooked and subsequently depraved of niccotine then it has been known for certain folk to lose control. Also who is to say what a perscription drug may do to the user, morphine after all is opium, not that many folk on morphine are at work.
Yep a fair comment I reckon
weezer 316
04-Jul-11, 13:40
A very fair comment. I have had some mind bending prescriptions! barbiturates in particular and still attended work, so I assume the same has been done in jobs with drug testing in place. So it would appear they test because its illegal rather than for health and safety purposes.
Golach,
I dont know a barman who could tell me how many units of alcohol are in a nip despite years serving them! Chasing people doesn't equals knowledge of drugs anymore than serving in a supermarket equals knowledge of food.
Could someone who is wishes prohibition to remain clarify why alcohol is legal as opposed to the currently controlled drugs?
linnie612
04-Jul-11, 14:17
I guess they dont perform tobacco checks is because you are still deemed to be in full control of you facalties when using it.
However the first fag of the day havs been known to give a niccotine rush, and if you are hooked and subsequently depraved of niccotine then it has been known for certain folk to lose control. Also who is to say what a perscription drug may do to the user, morphine after all is opium, not that many folk on morphine are at work.
Yep a fair comment I reckon
'depraved of nicotine'? Maybe if we can't get our fix!;)
Could someone who is wishes prohibition to remain clarify why alcohol is legal as opposed to the currently controlled drugs?
How many times has this subject been hammered on this forum? Do not confuse them with facts, Weezer, when they have already made up their minds?:~(:~(
How many times has this subject been hammered on this forum? Do not confuse them with facts, Weezer, when they have already made up their minds?:~(:~(
LMAO I wondered how long it would be before, you crawled out into the open, and spouted your usual garbage, or should I say junk.
LMAO I wondered how long it would be before, you crawled out into the open, and spouted your usual garbage, or should I say junk.#
Aye, never miss a chance do you. You seem to be as pathetic as ever.[lol]
I wonder why your sons company would have this testing in place bekisman? Maybe just maybe, it is because his work would be affected if under the influence, but as posted by weezer I need to get educated on drugs. Having spent a few years on my life, chasing and catching druggies & junkies, and enjoying my job doing it :lol: I think I have all the education I need.I should have also mentioned he's tested for alcohol, he's ultra cautious and his last alcoholic drink is on Saturday night, before the Monday.. Suppose with the high-powered stuff he does (manager) the top dogs are worried if a bug is in the system - because he may be affected by drugs/alcohol - they don't want an A380 dropping out of the sky..
oldmarine
04-Jul-11, 15:24
Interesting comments on this thread. When I applied for a job or was working we never had to do any of these things. But then I was so many years ago I guess no one was concerned then. How times have changed.
Well said RecQuery.
. Perhaps you can tell me why you back this and not say, ecstacy being legal seeing as it barely kills a soul?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/02/ecstasy_risks.html
Another two possible ecstasy deaths in one week plus one more in the grampian region, "Ecstasy barely kills" aye right. Never mind thats 4 less junkies to bother about.
......ecstasy... Never mind thats 4 less junkies to bother about.
i wid hardly call someone who takes an ecstasy at 'e weekend a 'junkie' golach. 'at's a right auld fashioned attitude. a junkie is someone who uses smack.
choost curious, i wid niver want til offend ye but would ye call someone who uses cannabis a junkie?
It was 'Get with the Times' who wanted everyone last year to go to Birmingham and toke.
He was the first one...himself, to say that users were called the Unwashed, junkies etc.....
But Trix...Mary Jane is an illegal drug. And if you had dealt with Drug users, Marihuana users as I have.....it is not all innocent.
And MMDA, MDMA and MDA etc etc was the Love Drug back in the 70's. Not new as some people think.
Phencyclidine PCP and the rest....extremely dangerous.
Perhaps in controlled circumstances a toke is reasonable, but as with all things it is abused.....
Smack...Heroin.... Junk.....likely pure as you will know your dealer/ whereas the rest of the above you buy off the Street....included in the 'stuff' could be rat poison, burnt oil, cats pee, just use your imagination...
i wid hardly call someone who takes an ecstasy at 'e weekend a 'junkie' golach. 'at's a right auld fashioned attitude. a junkie is someone who uses smack.
choost curious, i wid niver want til offend ye but would ye call someone who uses cannabis a junkie?
I may be old fashioned trix, but yes anyone who uses, grows or deals in cannabis, or any other illegal drugs I consider a junkie.
I may be old fashioned trix, but yes anyone who uses, grows or deals in cannabis, or any other illegal drugs I consider a junkie.
ok, i choost wondered......
is it choost illegal drugs then...how do ye feel aboot prescription drugs....amitriptyline? tramadol?
uppers, dooners...inbetweeners?
some kiddies pack yon vallies in them lek its goin oot o' fashion!! at serotonin is wild. i ken a guy who takes it for depression an' jeasus, it knocks him for six.
i wid consider someone buzzin oot their boobs on prescription drugs til be more a junkie that someone who enjoys a nice bit o' blow.
I may be old fashioned trix, but yes anyone who uses, grows or deals in cannabis, or any other illegal drugs I consider a junkie.
LOL by that logic anyone involved in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of alcohol is an alcoholic.
Another two possible ecstasy deaths in one week plus one more in the grampian region, "Ecstasy barely kills" aye right. Never mind thats 4 less junkies to bother about.
A bit rash there Golach, dont forget there will be families mourning the death of their loved ones!!
You know..Trix and others seem to think Illegal Drugs are not that bad/ perhaps a wee bitty o' Tough Love comes into this equation.
Illegal Drugs KILL...In fact Prescription Drugs taken without proper direction, can maim and kill!
For those who haven't had to go to a parent's door and tell them that their child, husband etc etc are either in a Coma or Dead seem to think it is fine/ It will never happen to me or my Family.
Give yourselves a 'shake'. Abuse something and it wil come a knockin!
You know..Trix and others seem to think Illegal Drugs are not that bad/ perhaps a wee bitty o' Tough Love comes into this equation.
Illegal Drugs KILL..
Bit of a sweeping generalisation youve arrived at there. Depends on what sort of illegal drugs your talking about, how much of them you use and how often you use them.
You know..Trix and others seem to think Illegal Drugs are not that bad/ perhaps a wee bitty o' Tough Love comes into this equation.
Illegal Drugs KILL...In fact Prescription Drugs taken without proper direction, can maim and kill!
For those who haven't had to go to a parent's door and tell them that their child, husband etc etc are either in a Coma or Dead seem to think it is fine/ It will never happen to me or my Family.
Give yourselves a 'shake'. Abuse something and it wil come a knockin!
There are lots of things that kill which are legal and lots of things that don't kill which are illegal - personal responsibility has to factor in at some point, too much of anything is usually bad, water for instance if you drink too much of it within a certain period of time, you die. My opinions are changed by facts and evidence, not propaganda and emotions.
If someone tells me something is bad for me I keep on doing it untill I have evidence. You know, like playing on the train line, jumping off tall buildings, insulting Policepersons, that sort of thing. :roll:
If someone tells me something is bad for me I keep on doing it untill I have evidence. You know, like playing on the train line, jumping off tall buildings, insulting Policepersons, that sort of thing. :roll:
Ah, Reductio ad Absurdum and Appeal to Authority in one post. BTW all of those examples would actually be covered - there's a difference between someone saying 'fire is hot' and someone saying 'the sky is brown'. In addition you obviously have to consider the source when someone tells you something.
oldmarine
07-Jul-11, 15:08
If someone tells me something is bad for me I keep on doing it untill I have evidence. You know, like playing on the train line, jumping off tall buildings, insulting Policepersons, that sort of thing. :roll:
ducati: I hope you are joking. I have enjoyed your comments. I would hate to see you do any of those things. [lol]
Ah, Reductio ad Absurdum and Appeal to Authority in one post. BTW all of those examples would actually be covered - there's a difference between someone saying 'fire is hot' and someone saying 'the sky is brown'. In addition you obviously have to consider the source when someone tells you something.
Latin quotes, altho' they sound just wonderful don't seem to cut it. Perhaps if we cut out the illegal things, the rest would be quite sufficient.
Am surprised that people take so little heed of the Laws of the Land! And don't talk about speeding...the comparisons don't work......
Back to my initial Q.....
What about .........Welfare/ Support.. only if you are 'clean'! And I am not talking anout the 'great unwashed'.
billy5000
07-Jul-11, 15:16
i guess that makes me a junkie as i smoked for years(15+) and i admit that in my youth it was the IN thing but as i got older it helped me ease bowl pain i have suffered for along time!!!
a junkie is someone that injects smack!thats what i call dirty and would never do!!
so i guess not all JUNKIES are scag heads eh!
plus i never robbed people for money for cannabis like those dirty types!
i find the research about the effects pretty funny (cannabis)as they are mainly gained from speculation and thin results.(all presented to keep the status at illegal)
funny how MS sufferers etc have so much better quality of life with its effects
when i did it all i wanted to do was clean the house and do repairs/diy/etc
we are not all lazy stoners
Just justifying illegality...unless you are authorized to use it Medicinally.
Just imagine if everyone flaunted the laws......
But obviously some people enjoy making a mockery of the system....but they shouldn't cry when they are held accountable!
You see with the above post...Another calling themselves 'Lazy Stoners'. Must be awful to call oneself that. No one else on here seems to.
Just justifying illegality...unless you are authorized to use it Medicinally.
So, you agree, legal highs are ok to take then? [lol]
You see with the above post...Another calling themselves 'Lazy Stoners'.
Read it again, slowly this time.
Actually my 'Q' was as the very first post....I shall leave it at that. Tks to everyone.....s
Sorry, when you posted "see with the above post", I stupidly thought you meant the post above the one you posted. Anyway by your lack of reply to the legal highs, I take it youre ok as anyone taking them isnt breaking the law.
billy5000
07-Jul-11, 20:46
Read it again, slowly this time.
i know stuff that will make you read fast and without really taking it in!!:)lol
John Little
07-Jul-11, 20:56
If our rulers were as intelligent as they think they are, then legality and illegality in the question of drugs is an irrelevance. Laws are made by people and can be unmade by people.
Many laws are stupid. And are made for stupid reasons.
Then we learn and we know better.
Being gay was illegal in my lifetime; then people realised that actually it was none of their business what other consenting adults got up to - and the law changed.
In my lifetime there were laws which discriminated against Roman Catholics in some of the UK. That too changed.
In the 1920s in the USA they made alcohol illegal and what followed? Violence, abuse,bootlegging, racketeering etc etc. The worst thing about prohibition was that it was bad law - and it brought good law into disrepute.
Familiar?
And in the end it was legalised, regulated, controlled and made acceptable.
Drugs are here. They are not going away.
Whether you like it or not millions of people want them and use them; and a whole industry supplies them.
So instead of burying your heid in the sand and wishing it away, how about doing what an increasing number of experts say and acknowledging that this is actually nothing to do what you think.
It's about what IS.
And, worst of all, in the end it's about the liberty of the subject. We all have the right to go the high road to Hell in our own sweet way. It's called Freedom.
And no - I don't do drugs- save alcohol.
I get what you say John. But what would happen if every time a proscribed behavior was continued by enough people the law was changed to allow it? I don't need to give examples, there are plenty of them.
John Little
07-Jul-11, 22:02
I have to ask a question in return.
What is the function of law if not to regulate and codify social behaviour?
But law which proscribes behaviour practiced by a sizeable constituency will be defied, has always been defied- and will not work.
I have to ask a question in return.
What is the function of law if not to regulate and codify social behaviour?
But law which proscribes behaviour practiced by a sizeable constituency will be defied, has always been defied- and will not work.
OK I agree. Its not the law in this case that doesn't work, it crimminalises all those that take illegal drugs. What doesn't work is the police, the judicial system and the prison service. Not enough police to police the law. Judges won't sentence pot smokers to incarceration and even if they did, there are not enough prison places for them.
John Little
07-Jul-11, 22:16
No - I rather think it's like the law on using mobile phones while driving.
We agree that it's a stupid thing to do - yet I see people doing it all the time.
How do you police it? Indeed - how on earth were you ever going to police it?
So a law which cannot be enforced is broken routinely. And everyone who uses a mobile phone while driving is pushing the line and is a lawbreaker. They have a casual attitude to law and it will extend to other law by association.
Now which is more serious?
Someone who abuses their body by taking drugs? Yet damages no-one else.
Or the person who runs a toddler over while phoning the wife that he's 'on the way home...'?
If you want to get stoned out of your mind then that's fine by me. That's about you.
But I do object very strongly to you phoning while driving - because that is not about you but others.
The State of Florida just passed Legislation requiring people who apply for Welfare/Assistance to take a Drug Test.....
Anyone's thoughts?
We are getting away from the OP's original post, should those drawing welfare be made to take a drug test?
I say yes.
We are getting away from the OP's original post, should those drawing welfare be made to take a drug test?
I say yes.
A substantial amount of the people, who take drugs. Are in receipt of, disability payments anyway. Or on sick or whatever it's called now.
secrets in symmetry
08-Jul-11, 01:29
Regarding alcohol versus cannabis...
Imagine a world where it was legal to smoke cannabis and to bake cakes with it. Cafes selling these fancy cakes sprang up, and it was acceptable to smoke cannabis in them. This sophisticated cafe culture became part of the country's accepted social structure. Cannabis was known to be a drug, and it could be harmful, but it didn't make people violent, so it was legal, it made a lot of money for many (large and small companies), and it was taxed heavily. All was well.
Now, along comes some johnny come lately drug called alcohol. You don't consume it in cakes in a civil fashion. Instead, you mix it with water to produce a vast variety of different drinks that can be consumed in secret, and they cause imbibers to lose their self control. It is made illegal. A vast underground industry springs up. Organised crime produces alcoholic drinks, people become addicted to them, the government gets no tax from their sales. People steal to buy illicit alcoholic drinks whose quality is not predictable or controlled. These drinks are dangerous. People become violent after consuming alcohol, they commit even more crime, so that most crimes are alcohol related. People die from the effects of alcohol, they kill other people because of it. What a nightmare!
The good and moral people in the population are outraged at anyone who dares suggest that alcohol should be legalised. It's obviously too dangerous to be legalised.
And so it could have been. Well, perhaps.
If our rulers were as intelligent as they think they are, then legality and illegality in the question of drugs is an irrelevance. Laws are made by people and can be unmade by people.
Many laws are stupid. And are made for stupid reasons.
Then we learn and we know better.
Being gay was illegal in my lifetime; then people realised that actually it was none of their business what other consenting adults got up to - and the law changed.
In my lifetime there were laws which discriminated against Roman Catholics in some of the UK. That too changed.
In the 1920s in the USA they made alcohol illegal and what followed? Violence, abuse,bootlegging, racketeering etc etc. The worst thing about prohibition was that it was bad law - and it brought good law into disrepute.
Familiar?
And in the end it was legalised, regulated, controlled and made acceptable.
Drugs are here. They are not going away.
Whether you like it or not millions of people want them and use them; and a whole industry supplies them.
So instead of burying your heid in the sand and wishing it away, how about doing what an increasing number of experts say and acknowledging that this is actually nothing to do what you think.
It's about what IS.
And, worst of all, in the end it's about the liberty of the subject. We all have the right to go the high road to Hell in our own sweet way. It's called Freedom.
And no - I don't do drugs- save alcohol.
'at post deserves a roond o' applause.....weel said john...respect, ma friend x x
canadagirl
08-Jul-11, 05:13
Back to the original post- everyone I've talked to here, which is the west coast of canada where we are quite liberal about drugs, has thought it a good idea and "about time". We get the idea that it's about keeping public benefits for those who need it. If you can afford recreational drugs, or are a grower, then you really shouldn't be collecting welfare. Maybe there's more to it but that's my take on it. :)
oldmarine
08-Jul-11, 12:03
You know..Trix and others seem to think Illegal Drugs are not that bad/ perhaps a wee bitty o' Tough Love comes into this equation.
Illegal Drugs KILL...In fact Prescription Drugs taken without proper direction, can maim and kill!
For those who haven't had to go to a parent's door and tell them that their child, husband etc etc are either in a Coma or Dead seem to think it is fine/ It will never happen to me or my Family.
Give yourselves a 'shake'. Abuse something and it wil come a knockin!
Sandy: You make some strong points, but there are many who will not listen. They will have to discover for themselves. I remember Barney Ross who was a professional boxing champion who served in the USA Marines during WW2. Due to morphine for wounds he suffered, he got hooked and never did escape the problems that went with it.
A substantial amount of the people, who take drugs. Are in receipt of, disability payments anyway. Or on sick or whatever it's called now.
Now there's a sweeping statement.
How substantial is this amount? 10%? 25%? 50%?
What is the source for this figure?
I think you can safely make the assumption that a great many if not the majority of serious drug abusers will be on welfare of some sort. Hard to hold down a job when you spend even a small proportion of your time off your face on heroin.:eek:
Back to the original post- everyone I've talked to here, which is the west coast of canada where we are quite liberal about drugs, has thought it a good idea and "about time". We get the idea that it's about keeping public benefits for those who need it. If you can afford recreational drugs, or are a grower, then you really shouldn't be collecting welfare. Maybe there's more to it but that's my take on it. :)
Apart from the obvious civil liberties problems. I suppose my question would be: Why stop there? Why not go after people who spend all their benefits on gambling, smoking, alcohol, hell even an expensive hobby.
On a side note I've said already drugs just aren't really my thing, but I've known quite a lot of people in white collar jobs who would take drugs of various classification frequently and still function. Lots of them never took sick days because they were hung over either.
linnie612
08-Jul-11, 13:28
"I suppose my question would be: Why stop there? Why not go after people who spend all their benefits on gambling, smoking, alcohol, hell even an expensive hobby." by RecQuery
A good point. Benefits/welfare is supposed to be in place to provide the basic neccessities for people who are under short term/long term difficulties. Picking on one aspect is not going to make people use those benefits on the things they were intended for. Its down to the morality of the individual.
I think you can safely make the assumption that a great many if not the majority of serious drug abusers will be on welfare of some sort. Hard to hold down a job when you spend even a small proportion of your time off your face on heroin.:eek:
Youve hit the nail on the head there. There are drug abusers and drug users. Different breed altogether.
I think you can safely make the assumption that a great many if not the majority of serious drug abusers will be on welfare of some sort. Hard to hold down a job when you spend even a small proportion of your time off your face on heroin.:eek:
I would say the vast majority of regular illegal drug users will not be on welfare.
If we're differentiating between recreational users and heroin addicts, fair enough, but that was not the original point of this thread.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.