Do you think people on welfare need to give a drug test?

Post Reply New Topic

double post

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 22 May 2012, 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Live longer compared to who? and based on what. Caffeine does carry health risks when used long term. Also some people get jittery and you can say that's clear reasoning all you want but I'm pretty sure people aren't using clear reasoning when they are like that. But I'll go check my coffee facts and how dangerous it is and get back to that point. Also though it might not necessarily detract from ones ability to reason clearly it does not ad to that ability either according to everything I've read so far.

And what sort of software would you make out of coffee, that one I'm having a pretty hard time believing do you have a link?

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 22 May 2012, 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

which means the one day you dont get cofee your brain process is slower, by a factor in proportion to how much cofee you used to drink.

sounds a lot like physical addiction to me

According to erowid.org withdrawl from caffeine includes worsened mood, headaches, flu like symptoms, feelings of lethargy and reduces motivation. so yeah going without it it for a regular user can be painful and certainly interfere with their clear reasoning.

i assume you mean "take a drug test"


i do not have much capacity to consider matters in this domain, but i would think that there is a set of people who are receiving welfare benefits, and a subset of that set are some people who use their welfare benefits to acquire drugs.

among that subset is a high proportion of people who are "self medicating", and it is unlikely that they will be able to cease allocating a large proportion of their "income" to their "medication".

the reason they spend so much is because the "medication" they require is illegal, and many overheads need to be paid in that case.


if the governments of countries that provide welfare were to enter (usurp) the production and distribution of the mild recreational drugs that are sought by self medicators, then it may result in welfare being enough for the majority, and a vastly more rosy light in which the government will be viewed.

Nobody should do drugs. As a matter of fact, if you read back through what I wrote, I also mentioned that I am uncomfortable dealing with a business if I know my money is going to support a destructive habit.


Never said that. If anyone is scum, we are all equally scum no matter how much money we have or don't have. The poor do not have a monopoly on bottom-feeding.


Nope, never said that. In fact, I never said anything about putting ANYBODY in jail. We are strictly talking about public assistance being used to support destructive behavior, nothing more. You are attacking a straw man here and being intellectually dishonest.


Financial assistance for what? To keep smoking pot? Hey, I live well below the poverty level. You know what I do with what little income I manage to pull in? I reinvest it in my own work so I can maintain equipment, travel to gigs, and get work on projects that will actually bring in a little money. I made $250 on the side once writing and recording a jingle for a local non-profit. When I first started teaching guitar and piano lessons, I didn't have a piano, a guitar, or even so much as a practice amp for my daytime teaching studio. What did I do? Asked for all my fees up front, turned right around, and got everything I needed from guitar center. I broke even within two months. What I did NOT do was smoke it up or drink it up and risk putting my family on the street.

What I don't understand is why is it we feel that someone receiving public assistance is ENTITLED to engage in self-destructive behavior? I mean, even if you make the argument that pot isn't self-destructive, you can't argue that it isn't wasteful. Someone else might actually be starving and could have used your pot money to feed herself and possibly her baby, too. People who know that their money is going to support those who can't support themselves do NOT want to find out that good money that could help someone is just being blown over a recreational high.


But money isn't being TAKEN FROM US to support said "wealthy banker." As a matter of fact, it has come to light that "bailout money" has been horribly mismanaged to maintain excessive lifestyles that got us in this trouble in the first place. There has been a vehement public outcry against these people for acting like the idiots they are and spitting in the face of public opinion. People do not WANT to take their money to those banks or buy American-made cars because of how they've squandered what we gave them in good faith. In fact, we don't trust banks very much at all at my house. We keep a savings account only because that means we'll have a place to cash checks, and we keep a checking account with a few hundred dollars in it just in case we need to secure hotel rooms when we travel. We pay everything else in cash ONLY, and ONLY when we started doing that did we start to notice a turnaround in our financial freedom. We hate banks and what they do to people.

And I don't think those people should get a free pass at all. But, as I keep restating in just about every post, I don't want to give anyone MY money and support if they're just going to make self-destructive decisions and support those decisions with MY money. I have a say as to what happens with MY money, and I don't believe that money I pay in taxes should support that kind of behavior.

Also all the tax money does not belong to you, in fact none of it really does.......you paid it in taxes its now the governments money, which they are supposed to use for the good of the citizens. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but drug users in poverty are citizens as well. And clearly you don't know a lot about drug use, drug abuse, drug users(addicted, recreational, self medicating)...you think its just simple 'bad' behavior which well is it really any worse to say smoke weed compared to drinking beer.

I'm opposed to anyone using MY money to support destructive activity. Period. And that includes caffeine, alcohol, and even hydric acid if those things are being used for destructive purposes, whether to self or others.


I mean that some people will turn to dishonest tactics to win an argument. What you appear to be doing is putting words on my mouth. You're stating my position as something you know is indefensible and proceed to attack it. That's called a "straw man" argument. People who are easily offended will usually take the bait. I've had enough bullying both in school and in recent years that things don't get to me emotionally like they used to.

The tragedy is that many young people get so used to fallacious argumentation that they assume that it is appropriate. Heck, I've even done it until someone called me out on it once; now I try to be careful in policing my responses.

To answer you, I don't have THE answer. Obviously drug prevention and providing support for current addicts that will keep them off drugs. Whatever the answer is, I'm sure it's not an easy one. But supporting them to only keep them addicted is not the answer.


It prevents wasting public funds on undesirable behavior. Need benefits? Don't break the law!

Sweetleaf wrote:

But it IS the business of the public what they fund. If nobody wants their money spent on something, they shouldn't have to tolerate it. And if politicians ignore the will of the people long enough, the people vote someone else in office who will listen to them. If there really is a problem with welfare fraud taking money and putting it in the hands of those using it to support problem behavior, then the public has the right to impose and enforce rules as to how that money will be handled. The government is well within its authority to tell you how to use money it gives you.


I understand all that, but there is a prevalence of drugs that do not have any legit medical benefit at all. Addicts are not interested in moderation. They are interested in maintenance, which is difficult to do as tolerance levels increase.

And no one has any business using dangerously addictive drugs to "self-medicate." That should only be under a doctor's supervision. The problem with that is sometimes addictive prescrips require a weaning period before a patient can safely suspend use entirely. For someone who self-medicates, ending dependence on the drug will not really tend to be part of the plan.


That money most certainly belongs to me if I worked for it, and I deserve a say as to how it will be used.

I'm aware that drug users are also citizens. They get the same vote I do. If it ever came up at the polls, their voice would be every bit as heard as mine.

Here's a thought, though. Would someone under the influence or heavily addicted to dangerous illegal drugs really be as likely to vote on laws or representatives pushing those laws in such an objective way as to account for what really is best for society, or is it more likely people who are clean and clear-headed would be competent to make those decisions? What do you think the majority opinion would be?

@Sweetleaf: I meant to also respond about money for recreation, concerts, etc. First off, there aren't any shortages of parks and other free-to-use public facilities.

Second, I can enjoy as many free classical concerts and recitals as I have time to attend them. Universities make student and faculty recitals open to the public, and I take my children as often as I can. It may not be as interesting as the latest Disney animation, but at least it's a chance to escape and relax without blowing $50 on movie tickets.

tastes are not universal and to expect them to be is ridicoulous.

that is why some people decide to spend money on activities even if money are tight.

It depends on what the government is saying is best for our society...and I don't know i like the assumption that drug users are by default heavily addicted to dangerous illegal drugs, when some drug users just smoke cannabis which is safer than legal alcohol and only indulge in more dangerous drugs rarely if at all.

Yeah because sitting at the park in the hot sun is so fun when you easily get heat exhaustion, its great if its cloudy and cool though. I say take care of basic things first but if you have a little left over even if money is tight that's no reason not to use any of it for things you enjoy. What is the point in even having money if you can't use any of it to enjoy yourself. I mean especially for people in on going poverty you just expect them to never spend any money they might acquire on activities they enjoy unless they can quit being in poverty? I just can't agree with that sort of thing as that seems to be borderline getting into peoples personal business when its better to stay out.

Also not everyone has children or an interest in classical music concerts, so not everyone would enjoy the same activities you do or be interested in child friendly activities. Its great you've found alternative activities.....but holding everyone to the expectation that they only use money for things they enjoy if they are financially stable is asking too much from the general human population.

It's typical to demand of poor people that they live a monastic lifestyle preferably with scourging and hairshirts and to castigate them for their corruption when they dare indulge themselves once in a while. Life for them cannot have a single pleasure, it is decreed by the Morality Police... and if they dare break that law, they deserve to pay a heavy penalty.

damn you must be pissed at the army

I have a solution. No more tax funded handout to anyone. Not to corporations and not to dead-beat bums.

ruveym