2 simple new laws that would drasticly cut crime and reduce taxes

Yeah you're right dude, we'll save money by drug testing EVERYONE WHO APPLIES FOR A SOCIAL SERVICE. That will work very well, because of course drug testing is free.

What happens if you deny drug users housing or education assistance?

How does crime go down?

Is it your theory that government assistance is an incentive to use drugs?

The OP theories and not based on fact.

Lets put it a little simpler so we can see what people really believe.

Here is a simple question:

Do you think habitual drug users should be allowed to continue to recieve governmental welfare?

Or put even more plainly, should your tax dollars go to support people who choose to do drugs.

I say no. Lets support those who really need help and are trying to better thier lives; not support those who are just using someone elses money to enable their destructive lifestyle.

I can't believe so many people on this thread are actually says that habitual drug dealers should be able to keep getting a free handout of their hard earned tax dollars.

Get a clue people. Maybe taking welfare away from them won't change all of them or even many of them, but at least we won't be helping enable that destructuive lifestyle.

I support helping those who in a tough spot and want and need help. Not supporting a destructive lifestyle of someone who just wants things given to them and has no intention or desire to change.

Social Reform In America wrote:

Lets put it a little simpler so we can see what people really believe.

Here is a simple question:

Do you think habitual drug users should be allowed to continue to recieve governmental welfare?

Here's an even simpler question.

Do you think people who feel they have no other option will resort to crime or just sit in a corner and slowly fade away?

There are lots of laws that would magically solve all our problems. How about "execute" everyone at retirement age". That would eliminate social security costs and lots of medicare/medicaid.

There's an ethical side to the whole "make up a law, solve the problem" thing that seems to have eluded many folks on this thread.

I am not a druggie or a criminal by my sister is.

I help where I can but I do not have the resources to house her and her children.

She spent 8 months in jail for possession of drugs when she went in the hospital to deliver her premature baby.

After getting out she had 2 more children.

She is a pretty good example of what a lot of people here hate.

With felony charge it is especially hard to get work in this economy.

She does rely on welfare.

She is now clean but suffers from depression.

The children are of course innocent here.

I want to know if putting her kids in foster care and leaving her in the streets to die is better for society.

Thanks for any sincere or insincere suggestions.

ordersofmagnitude wrote:

Here's an even simpler question.

Do you think people who feel they have no other option will resort to crime or just sit in a corner and slowly fade away?

But you didn't answer my question. Why?

As for your question, no I don't think they would just disappear, but that doesn't mean we should support them as a blackmail price to be paid so they don't get even worse.

Are you suggesting we should pay every bad apple in order for them not get really bad? Is that your social cure?

Social Reform In America wrote:

Or put even more plainly, should your tax dollars go to support people who choose to do drugs.

I say no. Lets support those who really need help and are trying to better thier lives; not support those who are just using someone elses money to enable their destructive lifestyle.

What do you have against drug dealers in particular? Your lack of understanding/sympathy might be just as destructive in addition to whatever laws you yourself break. You get government support also, we all do.

All say 'aye' in favor of stopping using our tax dollars to support the poster known as Social Reform In America, his destructive ways, and his poor judgment ability.

The answer is to work toward avoiding this problem from happening, not supporting it once it does happen.

I don't hate your sister. I feel sorry for her, and especially her kids, but I don't see how enabling a destructuve lifestyle helps anyone. You can't just throw money at a problem, you have to fix a problem. You need to give people help but also require them to show commitment and make progress to continue to get that help. Just giving them things only hurts them because they come to expect or feel entitled to it and their pattern of destruction only continues.

really? lol wrote:

What do you have against drug dealers in particular? Your lack of understanding/sympathy might be just as destructive in addition to whatever laws you yourself break. You get government support also, we all do.

All say 'aye' in favor of stopping using our tax dollars to support the poster known as Social Reform In America, his destructive ways, and his poor judgment ability.

Nice, but you won't answer my question will you. Have some balls and just come on out and say it: Yes you are in favor of government support for habitual drug users.

Social Reform In America wrote:

I can't believe so many people on this thread are actually says that habitual drug dealers should be able to keep getting a free handout of their hard earned tax dollars.

Get a clue people. Maybe taking welfare away from them won't change all of them or even many of them, but at least we won't be helping enable that destructuive lifestyle.

Great, philosophically I am all with you. Let's talk practical reality. Do you have any actual experience with government programs? What are the current restrictions with using drugs/alcohol and receiving Section 8 housing? What are the criteria for receiving SSI with a disability and a drug addiction? SSDI? Medicaid and Medicare?

If we are to implement your suggestion, how many additional workers is it going to take to drug test everybody? How many times will they have to be drug tested? Per year/month/day? Will they have to file 'whereabouts' reports like athletes have to with WADA? What drugs will be tested for? How much will the tests themselves cost?

Brother wrote:

I am not a druggie or a criminal by my sister is.

I want to know if putting her kids in foster care and leaving her in the streets to die is better for society.

Thanks for any sincere or insincere suggestions.

There are really no easy answers for a situation like this. Avoid anybody who tells you that there are.

1) Mandatory castration of black males at age 13.

2) Mandatory castration of Hispanic males at age 13.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Great, philosophically I am all with you. Let's talk practical reality. Do you have any actual experience with government programs? What are the current restrictions with using drugs/alcohol and receiving Section 8 housing? What are the criteria for receiving SSI with a disability and a drug addiction? SSDI? Medicaid and Medicare?

If we are to implement your suggestion, how many additional workers is it going to take to drug test everybody? How many times will they have to be drug tested? Per year/month/day? Will they have to file 'whereabouts' reports like athletes have to with WADA? What drugs will be tested for? How much will the tests themselves cost?

Use the same system as government employees. A test at the beginning and than random test every so often (year or two). I'd suspect you'll save more in cutting people out then you will in cost to implement the system, as you already have the infrastrucure in place for other governmental employees. They will recieve a notice (delivered to where they get their checks) that they need to appear in person to recieve their next check and will be subjected to a drug test at that time. If they don't get the notice they will contact the governmental office to complain about it not recieving the check and they can be notified in person then.

I have family who work for the state and I did also for a short time. Nobody I know has been drug tested. What government do you work for? In fact, I've never had a job that required a drug test (never done drugs anyway). And I've had many different jobs.

Social Reform In America wrote:

ordersofmagnitude wrote:

Here's an even simpler question.

Do you think people who feel they have no other option will resort to crime or just sit in a corner and slowly fade away?

But you didn't answer my question. Why?

As for your question, no I don't think they would just disappear, but that doesn't mean we should support them as a blackmail price to be paid so they don't get even worse.

Are you suggesting we should pay every bad apple in order for them not get really bad? Is that your social cure?

I'm happy to answer your question. Yes, I think we have an obligation to help people who need help when we can. We ought to keep helping them even if they fail. And we should do so even if they are 'bad' and even if they never get better their entire lives. Of course what exactly constitutes 'help' is a very very messy question. And how much we can help people has limits (though we are a very rich society) But certainly ignoring them and giving no support does *not* constitute help.

Plus it doesn't solve the problem on a practical level.

It's a fail all the way around except on the 'I can feel self-righteous' front.

I'm guessing you've never been a parent......

drug tests? wrote:

I have family who work for the state and I did also for a short time. Nobody I know has been drug tested. What government do you work for? In fact, I've never had a job that required a drug test (never done drugs anyway). And I've had many different jobs.

I work for the government. I have never been drug tested. I am subject to testing for reasonable suspicion. If they had to test me they would send me to a private medical office in town. I have been drug tested at hire and also randomly at private jobs. We do not have infrastructure in place to do testing.

also, nobody I work with gets a physical check any more. They all have direct deposit or receive monthly deposits onto an electronic benefits card, depending on the benefit.

So, the answer is no, you have no knowledge of how our social services system work and you have absolutely no idea about the practical implementation of your suggestions (particularly the costs which I see you ignored completely except for one flip statement at the beginning).

Social Reform In America wrote:

I can't believe so many people on this thread are actually says that habitual drug dealers should be able to keep getting a free handout of their hard earned tax dollars.

Get a clue people. Maybe taking welfare away from them won't change all of them or even many of them, but at least we won't be helping enable that destructuive lifestyle.

I support helping those who in a tough spot and want and need help. Not supporting a destructive lifestyle of someone who just wants things given to them and has no intention or desire to change.

Did you read any of the responses? Plenty of people dismantled your premise on the following grounds: it wouldn't save the government any money (in fact, it might cost more), it wouldn't reduce crime (in fact, crime would probably go up), and it's not supported by ANY data. You didn't do one ounce of research. You have no statistics to support your ideas. You cited no studies. You have NO DATA. It's just a hunch, and it's incredibly childish to think that everyone should just get on board with your weak, unsupported argument simply because you have a hunch that it would work in the real world. Give me a break.