News & Politics

Rant

Florida to Tie Drug Tests to Welfare

Posted 12 months ago|85 comments|1,120 views
Written by
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
Florida Governor Rick Scott will likely sign into law today a new bill requiring all welfare recipients in Florida to pass a drug test before remaining eligible to receive the benefits. According to the new legislation, those who fail will be rendered ineligible for a period of 12 months. Rick Scott was quoted in the Miami Herald as saying, ""It's fair to taxpayers," Scott said after the vote. "They're paying the bill. And they're often drug screened for their jobs. On top of that, it's good for families. It creates another reason why people will think again before using drugs, which as you know is just a significant issue in our state." (source)

[Note: if you visit the link, it's interesting to scroll down and read the local reactions which raise many salient issues such as this one from Jonathan Swift (n.d.p.), "To qualify for this corporate tax break, is drug testing required? Do they have to pay for the test? The answer to both questions is, of course, no. Those who receive corporate welfare our held to a different standard---that is---no standard at all. They're wealthy, which somehow equates to being morally superior, apparently. Isn't class-warfare amusing to behold?..." (source)]

What's so ironic is that this legislation is coming from a state of people who claim to be against government intervention into the likes of citizens and who want small government. I

Nonetheless, this is an interesting bill with some interesting stated 'good' intentions – the primary one of which is to help end the cycle of drug abuse among the poor. Will it work? Probably not. What it may do is increase the crime rates. Note, there is nothing in the bill to pay for drug rehab for people who test positive. Meanwhile, it's put children in the way of harm because positive testing parents may have no other means to support them. Rather is this yet another capricious attempt by right-wing conservatives to zing the poor masked in all the right intentions? It's an interesting mess that is unlikely to achieve it's goals. Interestingly enough, the aforementioned article states that very few Floridians on welfare have tested positive for drug use in previous trials in the state. More than likely, it sounds like the entity that stands to make out the best are the clinics who will be conducting all of the $35 drug tests.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Yay for Scott Brown!!!!

Of course the measure will work. It will help insure that the money given to these people will not go toward funding illegal drug use, gangs, and smugglers. It will put a big crunch on the druglords who depend on those lower income people for their livelihoods.

You would be surprised at the amount of government assistance dollars that go towards alcohol and illegal substances. Talking about government interference in private lives, that's part of the servitude the liberals have set up, creating a whole new class of slaves to the system.

Kentucky has already passed the same set of laws, but I guess Scott Brown is a more popular target these days.

Missouri has also introduced similar legislation.

West Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma are following suit.

Even Minnesota and Hawaii are considering such measures.

Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
Content Removed by Altruist
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
12 months ago: Of course the right wing is also busy eliminating any programs that help these unfortunates to get off drugs.

The right wing is responsible for globalization which caused people to loose jobs, and the destruction of the entire economy so they lost their homes, and their health insurance. (65% of bankruptcies are due to medical crises).

These are the sort of things that drive the desperate to use drugs. The right wing has a tendency to cause people to fail then to blame them and kick them when they are down.

So if these folk don't pass the drug tests will Brown step up and feed the starving children when their parents are thrown in jail? Will he pay for rehabilitation to get them off the drugs and then give them job training so they can once again become useful tax paying members of the community?
12 months ago: That's real nice Al.

Make these poor saps sit around, twittling their thumbs, and pay them to do that. That sure helps with their self esteem.

Liberalism is cruel.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: RSG–have you ever really sat down and asked yourself why people are poor in this country. I think it would be a very interesting interal dialog for you to have.

It is my humble opinion that poverty in our world is not a simple situation. It is all too easy to blame the people themselves, when, in fact, there are a plethora of complicating factors.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
So if these folk don't pass the drug tests will Brown step up and feed the starving children when their parents are thrown in jail?
If they can't feed 'em they ought not to breed 'em. After all they KNOW what causes babies these days. Even teach it in school. Hell! They even hand out condoms for free.

If you can't feel 'em, don't breed 'em.

so they can once again become useful tax paying members of the community
Al, you're assuming they were ever " useful tax paying members of the community" in the first place. Not a safe assumption, Al. Remember, assumption is the mother of all f**k ups. Translation: Assumption is the first - AND WORST - of all mistakes.

But you knew that already, didn't you?
12 months ago: Good job. Beam me up Scottie. Nothing like giving welfare crack heads money for food that they spend on crack. Your next complaint will be that we are kicking the crackheads out of public housing and taking away there transportation subsidies. I say add a drug test to the government healthcare requirements.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: What happened to "There, but for the grace of God, go I."?

12 months ago: Huh? "There, but for the grace of God, go I."?

Ah...I get it. Do you?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: What happened to "You take the man's money, you dance to the man's tune?" The taxpayers of Florida do not OWE those people anything - anymore than we the taxpayers of Texas owed my sister anything. If she wanted the money sho should have been HAPPY to jump through WHATEVER HOOPS WERE NECESSARY to feed my nieces. BTW, my wife and I helped directly where/when we could. We helped more when she got out of the projects. Then she got married and her husband did his duty.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Ask Noam Chomsky which is worse, wage slavery or welfare slavery? Amazing that until a century ago, working for a wage was considered as demeaning as being chattel, as a free man would never rent himself out.

Now folks just sell themselves into slavery voluntarily.
12 months ago: Another case of republicans talking out of both sides of their face at once. They want smaller government yet want to implement an entire department to drug test welfare recipients.

They want to maintain three wars + billions in foreign aid, to remain the "shining beacon of hope" for the world yet they don't want to pay for them with tax increases on those who can afford to pay.

Republicans shopped our war debt to the Chinese in the bush era yet now they have decided the rest of the country should pay for their bad financial management. And their going to do that by unfairly taxing those who need assistance by not increasing benefits at the rate of inflation and by in effect taxing them for trying to better themselves.

The only positive thing i can see in this whole debacle is their going to create a few jobs down there in Florida. As long as you don't mind handling piss on a daily basis.

12 months ago: Did we just "time warp"? 3 republican wars? I really need to add some more fuel to my liberal time warp machine. Too bad it now requires non-existent shovel ready liberal democrat green power.

Please name the 3 wars along with the formation dates of each along with the list of party which held the office of...

President
Senate
House of Representatives

UH? Republican wars? Next thing you will say is the Democrats went along to protect Americans. Geeeeezeeee.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Just watch the speech, TCG, and you can see Obama secretly hand signalling that the Republicans forced him to increase the troops in Afghanistan, and lead the effort to topple a sovereign country's dictator in Libya.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Oh, shoot, did I not comprehend John McCain saying we should go gangbusters in Libya?

Anyway, no one said 3 republican wars. What was said was that Republicans want to maintain 3 wars without raising taxes to fund them! Let's all try to read more carefully.
12 months ago: Oh, shoot, implied..........

"They want to maintain three wars + billions in foreign aid, to remain the "shining beacon of hope" for the world yet they don't want to pay for them with tax increases on those who can afford to pay."
12 months ago: Oh I wanted to add. It costs about 8 dollars to beat a urinalysis drug test every single time. It's slightly more expensive to beat a mouth swab but the test itself also costs about twice as much to administer.

This is the biggest problem with republicans and those others who live their lives staring out thru the bars of their closed minded prisons. They are so out of touch with the common man that they think a drug test is going to bar someone desperate for money from getting their welfare check.

Do you right-wing guys think that the poor drug addicts are going to just disappear when they cant get their check? Or will they be far more likely to kill your mothers and sisters to get their pocket change to buy a fix? I mean what the hell they are already branded criminals.

12 months ago: Are you talking "beat" as in making invalid?

OK. Let's all bite the bullet and make them take a...

hair follicle drug test. Try to "beat" that one....
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Drug testing labs now test first for masking agents and validate samples for adulterants and other tampering. If the sample comes back too diluted, or certain enzymes are not present due to a flushing agent, the test is considered invalid and a follow up is required.

As far as my mother and sister are concerned, they're both packing. Mom is a pretty good shot, and not afraid to drop the hammer, but Sis still is struggling with her her desire to rationalize with people and "reach" them. Even so, in a pinch, I think she would wait as long as she could before giving a drug crazed thief his final injection. Voila, then they aren't criminals any more.
12 months ago: You forgot temperature.
12 months ago: See this is where you really have no clue. And if the Floridians are talking about using actual labs then $35 per is no where near the actual cost of administration.

The problem with the criminals killing mom and sis is that they will never see it coming. Of course your making a personal case instead of a societal case. Which is what you guys do when you cant grasp the big picture.

Someone mentioned follicle testing. welcome to the 21st century and costs up to about $150 per test not to mention a much slower turn around time in addition to the bureaucracy that is the welfare system.

12 months ago: Hey Slim? When was the last time you took a drug test?

Me? I my line of work they run about 3 to 4 per year.

Yours? Uh? Never?
12 months ago: Sorry TCG your lame replys will no longer draw a response from me directly. You add nothing to the conversation, you play games, you find it entertaining. I do not.
12 months ago: Sorry Slim. You better think your questions through next time. Me? I could give a Louieville Rats rear if you ever reply to anyone. The way I see it. You don't even have a vote.

Answer the freaking questions or are they not on the DNC list?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Slim, "making a personal case"?

Isn't that what you were trying to do, attempting instill fear of the poor poor drug addicts who will have no recourse but to rob and kill my loved ones, supposedly the weaker ones not traditionally able to defend themselves? Was I supposed to dwell on the mental image of my frail old mother cowering in fear as a masked junkie kicks in her door to steal her diamonds and pocket change? Sorry, I just couldn't imagine that. What I could imagine, however, is my mother calmly putting a bullet between the eyes of a rabid dog that needed to be put down for the safety of society as a whole.

Hair follicle testing can be done for as low as $35/test with the average test now being done for around $70. The advantage is up to a three month history of drug usage, not the two or three days it takes to clear your system of crack cocaine or methamphetamine. And there is positively no way to beat the test, short of cutting off all your body hair.
12 months ago: I'll answer for Slim....

Illegal search and seizure.
12 months ago: What happend Slim? 4 hours is not enough time to formulate an answer?

Still waiting on the talking point review from the DNC?
12 months ago: Slim's wearing out.

Just like most liberals, he is coming face to face with reality, and he can't handle it.

Slim will be leaving rantrave pretty soon now.
Content Removed by Slim Pickens
12 months ago: Hogwash.

"Corporate Tax Breaks"???!!!???

That means they get to keep THEIR MONEY. I ain't yours liberals.

Quit trying to run everybody's lives.

If you're on the government dole, you can't do drugs. If you want to do drugs, pay for it your own cotton picking self .....for crying out loud.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Well said.

I'd like to add that this is just another prime example of the liberal mentality, resisting every effort to actually bring responsibility to those living off the system. Without the poor "unfortunate", which they translate to mean "unable", much of their self-importance goes out the window. So why would they want a welfare junkie to get:
a) off welfare, or
b) off drugs?

The answer is simple. They don't.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
12 months ago: So what i gather from all of this blather is that anyone on welfare is a bad person who is not deserving of the constitutional rights of everyone else in the country.

They are blamed for having children if they are not rich yet the Republicans want to deny the same people any information or help in getting birth control.

Most people, despite the propaganda do not want to be on welfare. They would prefer having a decent job. But it is the Republicans who have destroyed the economy and sent all of the jobs over seas.

The Republicans cause the majority of the problems but are then unwilling to do anything about it except to throw the unfortunates into the streets where they are forced into lives of violence or prostitution or in jail. They just want to throw these people away. Talk about irresponsibility.

The Democrats try to change these people for the better. to get them off the dole and into the workforce (and yes most were productive before Bush destroyed the economy). It was Clinton who ended welfare as we know it and started getting these people jobs. It was Clinton who reduced the welfare rolls to 1/3rd of what they were. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinio...

One in eight people in the country live in poverty and the welfare programs serve mostly single women and their children. While the need for assistance has grown dramatically in recent years, the funding for assistance has remained the same, near 40 year lows.

So the Right will tell us that these women shouldn't have gotten pregnant and dropped out of school in the first place , but by eliminating Planned Parenthood which is dedicated to reversing this trend, they would make the problems worse. By cutting funding for child care programs they make it impossible for these women to go out and get a job and support their children. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02w...

By cutting off nutritional aid to our starving children (Most welfare recipients are children) we make it harder for them to concentrate and do well in school. This is the main reason our country does so poorly compared to other nations. We treat our young in abysmal ways, that is disgraceful for a supposedly developed nation, the richest in the world. Only Mexico has higher rates of child poverty than the US. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/salas.356/usa...

As most in most of the cases of Republican policies they only look at the short term. They are penny wise but dollar foolish and by neglecting our children the future of the entire nation is put at risk.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"So what i gather from all of this blather is that anyone on welfare is a bad person who is not deserving of the constitutional rights of everyone else in the country."
Exactly what "rights" are being infringed by the Florida action, Al? Isn't it pretty much SOP that if you take someone's money, you have to dance to whatever tune they call?
"Most people, despite the propaganda do not want to be on welfare."
If by "most people" you are referring to the general population, then I would agree. If you are referring to people on welfare, then my own sister's experience would argue strongly AGAINST that position. For a time, sh lived in Section 8 housing and got food stamps and other public assistance. She had neighbors who were THIRD GENERATION welfare recipients. I would not want their lifestyle but they seemed entirely content with it. They definitely were not interested in honest work.
12 months ago: Al.

I agree with the "blather" part.

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: "...Democrats try to change these people for the better....It was Clinton who ended welfare as we know it and started getting these people jobs...."

Bill Clinton was not a Democrat, in any current sense of the word. He was in the New Democrats, "...an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party." The New Democrats, organized under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) called for smaller government, and welfare reform.

Ironically, Barack Obama had his name removed from the New Democrat Directory in 2003 saying that his name had been added without his knowledge, and that he was removing his name because it implied membership in the DLC, which he had never joined.
12 months ago: What? Barry O'Blame'a is an "Old Democrat"? Please a link or 10.

What happened to Joe Biden? Seen him lately?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Well, lets see if we can backtrack:

In 1996, Barack ran for Illinois senator with the backing of the Chicago New Party, a fringe pressure group, ultra socialists trying to infiltrate the Democratic party with candidates of their choice.

From the New Party website: Aug. 1996

"Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis.

Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes."

Here is a NP newsletter:
http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/wp-cont...

And here is he posing with his New Party friends:

http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/wp-cont...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Want proof that the progressive socialist system is designed to keep the poor poor?

A friend of mine, Mr. C, retired last year after 40 years of working for the public school system as a bus driver and lawn maintenance man. 40 years of paying into social security. After retirement, he went back to work part time, and the SS told him he was only "allowed" to make a certain amount of extra income, which was less than half of his pay before he retired. He accidentally worked too many hours for this year, and now he has to
1) not earn any more money for the rest of this fiscal year,
AND
2) Repay to Social Security the difference of his "over-earnings".

The way I see it, the man paid into the system his whole adult life, and is now just getting back a portion of his own money.
Now they give him a pittance upon which to live, and tell him he can't add to his income, or he will lose his money that they have been holding hostage, interest free, for 40 years.
12 months ago: Crazy.
12 months ago: Yep. Crazy...

Let's say Mr. Albert gets a government job at age 18 and works for 20 years.

Retirement 1 plan at age 38

Then Mr. Albert gets a government job at age 38 and works for 20 years.

Retirement 2 plan at 58

Then Mr Albert gets a government job at age 58 and works knowing he will not get any retirement.

You think the government cut his retirement payments on plan 1 or 2 while he was coasting on plan 3?
12 months ago: A modest proposal - decriminalize all drugs.

Make them legally available to be sold, purchased, and used. Implement minimum age laws. Apply appropriate taxes to the transactions.

The criminal element behind the drug trade in America just got put out of business. The legal system just had a massive relief of cases allowing resources to be directed to other sources. The government revenues just went up as the taxes will be appropriately collected. Health and safety issues improve as basic standards can be enforced.

Prohibition proved that outlawing things doesn't eliminate those things. Legalize and then control and administer.

12 months ago: Edward P? Are they legal in Canada? Maybe you should work on you own laws and prove them with a track record before dipping into American politics.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Edward P

Why not just do away with all traffic signals? They cost a lot to maintain, and people are always having to pay fines for going through them "illegally", even when there is no traffic.

Speed limits too. Let the people drive however fast they want, and use the money saved from enforcing the speed laws to clean up the mangled automobiles and shattered bodies of those dumb enough to be in the way.

It's pretty obvious you've never been in the presence of someone in the last stages of methamphetamine poisoning, on a crack binge, or pcp'd out of his gourd. We ain't talking the occasional pot smoker here.

Figure it out. Most people who are on assistance are only eligible because they have children. You say you are a caring person, yet you want to sentence that child to a life in which his parents use drugs that render them incapable of being good parents. Not only are you going to turn a blind eye, you are going to condone it.

BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: Box? Kindly point out which part of Article 1 of the Constitution authorizes congress to legislate what substances an adult may not introduce into their body?

I lost a brother to liver failure. A substance abuse counselor I know defines the difference between a "drunk" and an "alcoholic" as being that the alcoholic admits he/she has a problem. My baby brother died a drunk. I also have outlived by over a decade an uncle who was only 3 years older than me. Drugs in his youth.

I could go on, but how is that in any wise relevant to the basic fact that any law limiting what substances an adult may/may not introduce into their bodies by whatever means they choose is without constitutional basis. The only excuse fo government is to PROTECT the rights of the people. Protecting people from themselves is NOT protecting their rights but a VIOLATION of those rights.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: BC

It wouldn't be in Article I. I agree that the Federal government has no jurisdiction over our individual bodies and what we choose to do with them. I would would look instead to the Tenth Amendment.


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Even if all Federal laws concerning drugs were deemed unconstitutional and subsequently repealed, I would strongly support even harsher penalties on the State level for most of the drugs on the illegal list.

Here in my state, we don't want a meth lab on every corner, or a crack house in every neighborhood, and we won't stand for it. The legislation being discussed here in this post reflects on the rights of the States to impose restrictions on those people receiving public assistance.

It's the same with FDA, NRC, DEQ, EPA, FCC, and so on. The individual's rights end at the point they begin to infringe upon the rights of others. In my mind, the laws are not designed to protect a drug user from doing himself harm, they are to protect the rest of society from the drug user.

BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
Content Removed by BadCyborg
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"the Federal government has no jurisdiction over our individual bodies and what we choose to do with them. "
We are 100% in agreement there.
"Here in my state, we don't want a meth lab on every corner, or a crack house in every neighborhood, and we won't stand for it. "
NOR IN MINE but that could be easily solved by ZONING ORDINANCES. I wouldn't want a gas station next door or a boobie bar next door either. We take care of that with ZONING ordinances.
"The legislation being discussed here in this post reflects on the rights of the States to impose restrictions on those people receiving public assistance."
And I have made it abundantly clear that I support the state/city imposing any conditions it desires. I was raised that "If you take 'the man's' money, you dance to 'the man's' tune." If you don't like my rules, don't ask for anything from me.
"The individual's rights end at the point they begin to infringe upon the rights of others. In my mind, the laws are not designed to protect a drug user from doing himself harm, they are to protect the rest of society from the drug user."
But such laws are not NEEDED! I would hazard a guess that anything a person on drugs might do that would endanger the rest of society are ALREADY PROSCRIBED!!! I do not believe that society has any right to punish me for doing something that harms no one but me. But then I also have a problem with society attempting to regulate what consenting adults do behind closed doors! If I use a substance, operate a motor vehicle and hurt someone, then the specific substance which impaired me is irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that I intentionally/knowingly/recklessly/criminally negligently operated a vehicle while impaired. PERIOD.

Proscribing an activity that harms only the actor is purely protective of THE ACTOR. And THAT is what I am most vehemently against.
12 months ago: Yeah, let's just zone all of it to the other side of the railroad tracks...

You know. The side you don't or won't live in.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Good point Cypress. If you zone it to another part of the city, who are the lucky ones who get to host the drug dens? Guess. The poor sections? ding ding ding.

BC

I hear where you are coming from, I really do. I believe our bodies are the only material possession that we ever really own outright, and we should be free to do with them as we choose. That includes the acid freak that wants to claw his own eyes out, he should be allowed, and then the state can support his blind useless self. The meth head who can feel bugs crawling under his skin and tries to skin himself to get them out can then be taken to the hospital and sewn back together, for free.

I believe if a person wants to strut naked through downtown, he should be allowed. He's not hurting anyone. And I believe that if a mother thinks she's "just fine" because she took 5 Xanax to counteract the gram of meth she just smoked, she should be allowed to carpool the kids to school. After all, what are the odds of something bad happening?

Of course, I don't believe that. I know for a fact that most junkies don't think they have a problem, and certainly don't think they ARE a problem. The fact that they are impaired to the point that they shouldn't be out in public rarely even flits across their short-circuited minds.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: How about just putting it with other manufacturing activities? There are zones for various commercial activities all over a city. Let OSHA and the EPA get at them. No reason to believe that if drugs were decriminalized the manufacturing would not get SAFER.

My point is that there ARE alternatives to criminalizing drugs and their use/abuse. Besides, I see no evidence that the current scheme is accomplishing anything but making some criminal kingpins obscenely wealthy.

BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"the acid freak that wants to claw his own eyes out, he should be allowed, and then the state can support his blind useless self. The meth head who can feel bugs crawling under his skin and tries to skin himself to get them out can then be taken to the hospital and sewn back together, for free."
WHY should we support the now blind acid freak? Why should the taxpayers pay to sew up the meth head? I have no problem letting either of them starve. If their families won't take care of them, why should society? They can always beg - excuse me "panhandle" - for a living.

"if a person wants to strut naked through downtown, he should be allowed. He's not hurting anyone. And I believe that if a mother thinks she's "just fine" because she took 5 Xanax to counteract the gram of meth she just smoked, she should be allowed to carpool the kids to school. After all, what are the odds of something bad happening?"
We already have laws against strutting naked through downtown. Why should being high on drugs be a mitigating factor in any way? If the other parents ALLOW her to carpool stoned on Xanax they deserve to have their children injured - and to be prosecuted for neglect. How does criminalizing use of meth help the situation? Driving impaired is already a crime.

Criminalizing use/abuse of certain substances is no more a solution to substance abuse than disarming law-abiding citizens reduces crime. If anything, criminalizing certain acts INCREASES the likelihood of those actions occurring under the principle of "forbidden fruit".

Face it, Box. In your heart of hearts you are really a closet elitist who believes they know what is best for everyone and is willing to use government to enFORCE your personal standards. I have given you multiple examples of solutions to substance abuse problems that do not involve criminalization of the act of use/abuse itself and you continue to argue in favor of society protecting them.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"I know for a fact that most junkies don't think they have a problem, and certainly don't think they ARE a problem. The fact that they are impaired to the point that they shouldn't be out in public rarely even flits across their short-circuited minds."
And so you show your true colors. You wish to protect these people from themselves. I don't know about other states, but the Texas statute covering public intoxication defines it as follows:
"A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another."
And this covers both alcohol and other substances. If the junkie with the "short-circuited mind" appears in public so impaired as to endanger themselves or someone else, they have committed a punishable offense.

C'mon. Admit it. You just don't like seeing disgusting, ugly, drug-addled people in public. Me either. But since it is ALREADY ILLEGAL to use/abuse whatever substance those "filthy, disgusting, ugly poor-excuses-for-human-beings" are fond of, how has criminalization of their substance use/abuse in any way HELPED?
12 months ago: Yeah...Those damn closet elititists...hiding behing Ronald Regan....

Not like those closet socialist/commie/liberal democrats hiding behind.....

Barry, Harry and Nancarry...Barney, Chris and Teddie.... UH? Not to mention dumping on your beloved...

Constitution.

Yep. Place your finger on a single word in that document that allows people to exclude themselves from the common law. When you find it, please enlighten us.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: What the frakking frell are you talking about? "dumping on [my] precious Constitution"???

And what are you talking about when you mention "exempting [oneself] from the common law"???? I DID say that "my precious" Constitution in no place empowers Congress to prohibit use of substances. Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution lists EVERYTHING Congress is empowered to legislatively control. Can you find anything that allows a law prohibiting substance abuse in it? If so, kindly share it with us. Otherwise, as OOTB has already pointed out, any FEDERAL statute prohibiting the use of ANY substance is unconstitutional.

Oh, and I find your phrase "your beloved...Constitution" quite revealing in a Freudian manner. I would infer from such phraseology that you hold our Republic's constitution in no special regard - if, indeed, you hold it in ANT regard at all. Have you issues with the foundation upon which our republic is built?
12 months ago: Reveal what you want. It hurts when the bee stings....doesn't it.
12 months ago: Let's see how close I can guess....

1) ex-military
2) ex-command
3) ex-rank above E5
4) never sent a grunt on a mission contrary to the Constiturion
5) never subitted a written complaint to a mission contrary to the Constitution
6) followed every order from your Command without regard to the Constitution

UH. Retired? Not likely if your in the OPs. Please.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Wow, I take an afternoon to go to a wedding, and I get bumped all the way down here.

(rolls up sleeves) :-)

"...We already have laws against strutting naked through downtown..."

Simple friendly question: Why? (yes, you are being set up)
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"Reveal what you want. It hurts when the bee stings....doesn't it."
WTF are you talking about "bee stings"??? Your post above is entirely impenetrable to me. Please answer my questions.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: TCG wrote: "Let's see how close I can guess...."

"1) ex-military" Yes. Do you have a problem with that?

"2) ex-command" BZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTT!!!! WRONG ANSWER!!

"3) ex-rank above E5" (see response to #2)

"4) never sent a grunt on a mission contrary to the Constiturion" (see response to #2) Never sent a grunt on a mission period. Never knowingly gave an unlawful order.

"5) never subitted a written complaint to a mission contrary to the Constitution" (see response to #2) Whiskey Tango Foxtrot are you talking about?

"6) followed every order from your Command without regard to the Constitution" (see response to #2) To the best of my knowledge I was never given an order that was not lawful.

Not retired - gave Uncle a dime and did what the majority of USAF E-5 were doing at that time and changed my first name back to "Mister".

Well you were 1 for 7 (I have no idea what you mean by "Not likely if your in the OPs.") thus confirming the old maxim "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally". Just for reference; what meds are you on?
12 months ago: ". We ain't talking the occasional pot smoker here. "

But you are, when you lump them together with the rest.
12 months ago: Wow! You nailed it! Grand Slam!

"I DID say that "my precious" Constitution in no place empowers Congress to prohibit use of substances. Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution lists EVERYTHING Congress is empowered to legislatively control."

What does it say about "States Rights"?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

10th Amendment for your reading enjoyment.

UH? They can pass laws at a State level as long as they are not contrary to the Constitution.

Most of the laws your referring to are prosecuted at a "State" level.....

No?

John Q Drugdealer v: The State of _______

Is that incorrect?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: And I did not say the States CANNOT pass such laws, only that they are unnecessary. All state laws against substance abuse (and in point of fact pot, opiates and several other drugs are proscribed at the federal level - which makes legalizing them difficult for the states in these times) are entirely constitutional. The fact that are at their core to protect individuals from themselves is something you guys keep denying.

I am and have always been a 9th and 10 amendment kind of guy. Tossing out every law congress passed that cannot be found - EXPLICITLY - in Article 1, Section 8 would reduce the size of the Federal Government ENORMOUSLY.

But if "most of the laws [I'm] referring to are prosecuted at a "State" level" then why is there a FEDERAL war on drugs? Where did marijuana laws originate? At what was cocaine outlawed? (BTW, it was sold to the public as being to protect those poor subhuman "Negroes" from their own urges) Nope, the most pervasive of anti-drug laws are federal. At least that is my own understanding.

I have no idea how you got that huge burr under your saddle CG, but I have consistently argued in favor of Florida imposing whatever requirements for those wishing to live in public housing it chooses. I just don't like drug laws in general. From everything I've seen in the last 45+ years, drug laws not only DO NOT WORK, they actually EXACERBATE the problems they were passed to solve.

CG, you clearly have no real understanding of how zoning laws work. And as for wanting to push the meth labs and crack houses into the poor part of town, FYI my house is in what when I was growing up would have been called "n****r town". City hall figures there is nothing but "white trash and n***rs" in my part of San Antonio. Getting utilities or streets repaired is like pulling wisdom teeth.
12 months ago: Wow! All Pot offenders are prosecuted in Federal Court and sent to Federal Prisions!

Let's start one step at a time....

"and in point of fact pot,...are proscribed at the federal level "

Really? What department in the Federal Government oversees the possesion and or sale of hemp?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: BadCyborg

You wrote "We already have laws against strutting naked through downtown"

I asked "Why?"
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: Cypress Gang wrote:
"Wow! All Pot offenders are prosecuted in Federal Court and sent to Federal Prisions!"
I didn't know that. And I most certainly did not WRITE that.

I did write that federal laws exist outlawing use of pot among other drugs. Is that not so? Are there, in fact, no federal drug laws?

I expect that the DEA would oversee "the possesion and or sale of hemp?" these days. Do you contend that mean that no federal statutes exist outlawing use/sale/production of marijuana?

You mentioned hemp. Not all hemp is marijuana. But hemp production IS proscribed by federal law. That is problematic because there are certain applications for which hemp fibers are superior to other fibers including synthetic.

But, again, is it your contention that there are no federal statutes on the books proscribing production, distribution, sale or use of marijuana? Or heroin? Or other opiates? Or cocaine?

Really? If so, then what is the mission of the Drug Enforcement Agency? Surely they would not create a FEDERAL agency to enforce STATE laws. Would they?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
Content Removed by BadCyborg
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"BadCyborg

You wrote "We already have laws against strutting naked through downtown"

I asked "Why?""
I do not understand your question? Why did I write that? Or why do we have ordinances against indecent exposure?

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: BC

I really think you do understand the question, but are being a bit coy. I meant why are there laws against strutting naked through downtown naked? Or through your own neighborhood, for that matter.

But before you answer, I'll toss a couple other quotes out there.

"...Proscribing an activity that harms only the actor is purely protective of THE ACTOR. ..."

"...C'mon. Admit it. You just don't like seeing disgusting, ugly, drug-addled people in public...."
12 months ago: I think perhaps it might be helpful to take a quick glance at our friends across the pond. In the Netherlands, marijuana is legal. There are cafes, places to purchase, it is effectively equal to cigarettes. Similar situation with prostitution. The result is not a grow op on every corner and hookers walking down every street.

The result is that these activities fall within the realm of legitimate business activities like any other business. Do you have a paper mill next to a school? Of course not. Would you have a drug cafe next to a school? Of course not.

And, for anyone who has been to the Netherlands and seen these establishments in real life, up close, they are not seedy, run down, holes. They are legitimate business establishments being operated in above board decent manners.

Reality is that prostitution and drug use have been around for at least as long as recorded history. We are deluding ourselves if we believe we can legislate them out of existence. I recently read (and I cannot remember the source) that in Canada, where I live, we spend 8 times the amount of money on policing, enforcement, and incarceration for drug crimes than we do education, prevention and rehabilitation. Given that the laws in the U.S. hold even more severe penalties, I will hazard a guess that the ratio is even less favourable.

Would it not be more productive to abandon the outlaw approach, legalize, monitor, tax through existing business and sales tax legislation, and direct the savings towards education and prevention?

There are many models in other countries that show it works. The real benefit is pulling the rug out from the organized crime elements that foster the violence surrounding these activities.

A simple example is this: A prostitute engages a client. The client is unhappy with "services rendered". The client has no legal means to deal with the situation - can't go to the police, can't sue. What does he do? Usually, becomes violent. So then, the prostitute gets a pimp to protect her because she has no real means to deal with the unhappy client. The pimp then has the option of effectively enslaving the prostitute. A lot of potential unhappiness here. Legalize the situation, first clients have legal recourse, second the prostitute has legal recourse, third the pimps are out of business.

How many of you see people on your street corners selling illegal cigarettes and alcohol? Why not? Because there are legal establishments to buy quality product and appropriate prices. Would it not end up being the same with drugs? Put the street dealers and the illegal importers as well as the gangs that make a huge amount of money around this ot of business.

Just a thought.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: How many drugs are legal in Amsterdam? Is heroin, meth or cocaine legal there? Mushrooms? Ecstasy?

We aren't talking about pot use so much s we are talking the life ruining drugs that are the scourge of the oppressed.
12 months ago: Life ruining is an interesting term. Ultimately I believe the concept can be extended to some degree to all drugs. In reality, alcohol ant tobacco cause far more damage to society than all the illegal drugs combined; they are the truly life ruining drugs. Yet, we abandoned the attempt to outlaw them many years ago. We adopted an approach of management and limitation. The result is improvement. Far fewer people smoke, drive drunk, and the like than 50 years ago.

I am in my mid-forties, when I was a teenager, drinking and driving was one of those you shouldn't do it but not a big deal, things. Teenagers now, at least here in Canada, view drinking and driving as something you do if you are a loser. And for most of Canada, the legal drinking age is 18! Underage teenagers look at drinking and driving as a stupid thing to do. Not because the laws have become harsher, but through education - not just for the kids but for the parents too. The real emphasis is on prevention of the real offense, where the drinking negatively affects someone else.

It is easy to pass harsh laws and try to fill prisons with offenders, but we should have figured out by now that it doesn't work.

Given the economic disaster most countries are facing, it is long past time that we change direction in a significant and meaningful way. If you can't eliminate it - manage it. Reduce the costs to society associated with something so we aren't all paying.

If you don't want to legalize heroin, legalize opium. Similar effects, far less intensity.

We need creative, out of the box thinking.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: "In reality, alcohol ant tobacco cause far more damage to society than all the illegal drugs combined; "

Does correlation imply causation? Not always, but you make a great argument in favor of keeping illegal drugs illegal.

How's this for out of the box thinking: shoot illegal drug dealers on sight.
12 months ago: How about shooting anyone who breaks any law on sight -- speeders, illegal parking, jay walkers, shop lifters, and of course - murderers.

12 months ago: HUH? You place road laws and petty theft in the same realm as illegal drug dealing and murder? What about rapists Edward P? You suggest neutering?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Yeah, I would think I could make a distinction.
12 months ago: Yeah. Better yet. How about this as a FIX (sorry for the pun).

Drug dealers will have their entire stash mixed in a saline solution and injected via an artery on site. Emergency medical support will be denied. Transportation to the morgue will be free. Family can pick up the body for burial. Unclaimed bodies will cause the bill for final services to be sent to the last registered residence for payment (grandma). You think that might get grandma to stop housing 4 families in her single family dwelling?
12 months ago: "HUH? You place road laws and petty theft in the same realm as illegal drug dealing and murder? What about rapists Edward P? You suggest neutering?"

Where do you draw the line? That's exactly the problem. Put 10 people in the room and you will have 11 different opinions as to where the line should be drawn.

That is where our laws get so complex and off target as to become an unworkable mass of contradictions. You either accept absolutism in the written dictation of the law with all the flaws that go along with that or you end up becoming relativistic with all the subjective difficulties that comes with that.

A driver going over the speed limit is potentially as lethal as the local drug dealer - right? A drunk driver as much a hazard to society as the drug runner? Make no mistake, there will be a lineup of people with perfectly legitimate arguments making those claims and many other like them.

I believe we need to take a giant step back. And try a completely different approach. Does the act directly, identifiably harm another person? Is the act a direct hazard to interacting with others - such as speeding or drunk driving? If the answer is 'no' to both questions, why do we try to regulate it?
12 months ago: Your welcome to your opinion just like I am. I appreciate your use of "drawing a line in the sand". A well know Texas legend. Yep. I can draw a line in the sand.

Can you?
12 months ago: Let me add.

Gnats are bothersome but horse flies bite.
12 months ago: Well said, on both points!

As to the horse flies, might I suggest some bug repellent. :)
12 months ago: But isn't bug repellent what your aguing against?
12 months ago: And yes, I too can draw a line in the sand....just in a different place than you. I do appreciate the sentiment that we are both entitled to our opinions and to freely express them. I must say, I am appreciative of the civility in which you engage in the debate. There are a few I have encountered here that do not seem to believe that two individuals in good faith, can disagree without casting personal insults.

Thanks you.
12 months ago: Ah! But you haven't seen my darkside yet. I have just been giving you a newbie break. Just ask around. I'm the baddest of the bad.
12 months ago: Then perhaps along with decriminalizing drugs, I should suggest DDT as a newly allowed pesticide.
12 months ago: Site user/moderator/administrator votes?
12 months ago: DDT. That is funny. You have no idea how much of that crap us southern bayou boys have floating around in out system. Why not look at all of the stuff that is used to make those nasty electric transformers that most likely are powering your home?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: BC

Continuing the conversation down here, for clarity's sake.

"You wish to protect these people from themselves. "

That is blatantly untrue. What I wish is to protect society from them, and to protect their defenseless children from a life of abuse and neglect. I would just as soon round up all the junkie parents (ok, that won't submit to treatment) and line them up in front of a long narrow trench. Short shrift and a short drop. The drug pushers too.

With society heralding and glorifying drug use, as is the current mixed message, legalizing drugs would open a Pandora's box that the lid might not ever be closed back on. Sure, we used to have the "anti-drug" commercials, but think about how many PSA's you've seen lately. I can't think of one in the last year.

I know you probably aren't aren't that much in tune with what's going on with the youth and young adults these days, but spend a couple days watching MTV and listening to your local bebop radio station. Believe me, they are sending a much more effective message than any supposed drug education campaign could even dream of.

12 months ago: Can't speak for BC, but I am a parent of 2 teenagers. The house is usually buzzing with my kids and any number of their friends. I make a point of listening, watching and keeping my ear to the ground.

There are undoubtedly teenagers out there who are 'at risk' of going down the wrong road. However, there are many more who get it. I see teenagers who opt to have a get together with friends because the big party going on is going to have drugs there and they are avoiding it.

I think we get a lot more bang for the buck in working with our kids and helping them make the right decisions, and give them alternatives. The number of parents I've spoken to that don't want their kids going to a party, but won't let there kids have a group of friends come over and hang out amazes me.

As to the dealers, knock the pins out by transferring the sale into the legal realm and taking their business away. I suspect none of them would have the where with all to setup and operate a legitimate business.

Pandora's box was opened many years ago. We spend billions every year trying to close with little to no effect. Abandon the old box and deal with the situation that exists in different manner.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: You'd be surprised how many drug dealers have used their ill-gotten gains to "go legit". I just recently set up a business for a young fellow, and about 3/4 of the way through, I got him talking. I found out he had financed it through nickel and dime crack and meth sales. He was a real go-getter, and would go as far as making sure his clientele got to work on time, so they could continue to buy his product.

The local chapter of the BGD, (of which I am an honorary member, by the way, just never got the brand) has bought several legitimate businesses paid for by their drug and prostitution operations. If drugs are legalized, who will be better equipped to distribute them than the ones who have been doing it for years? The profits will still be there, because the expenses of smuggling and hiding them and paying off crooked cops and politicians will be gone. The only ones who will be put out of business are the small time street pushers, because the users could go straight to the source.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.