So, you would rather pay more money than purging drug users (mostly just the pot smokers) would save AND send the children to foster homes and/or orphanages? You are truly delusional if you actually think this is a good idea.
That's about what I expected from the wingtards. Parent tests positive for pot>kick family off food stamps>place kids in foster care>cost taxpayers millions more in foster care support>destroy families. Republicans are really bad at the whole governing thing.
Depends on the drug and the level of use. Hardcore heroin users might find it rough to be sick a couple of days a month, but if it gets them a check they would do it. I knew a heroin junkie whose pattern was: Complain about his drug addiction to someone a few days before his supply runs out. Go through the first few days of detox to "prove" to his eventual victim that he truly wanted to get help. Leech off of the poor soul who trusted him for as long as possible, all the while using H secretly. Find a new victim and start the process over again, usually robbing the last victim before moving in with the new one. He did this for a few years in several different cities. He got to the point that his "detox" times were part of his habit and he craved these times as much as the drug itself. Stopping the use of an addictive chemical over the long term is difficult, but most addicts have the capacity to stop for a few days, particularly if it means they will get a check they can use to binge.
This goes beyond "bad at governing". It shows a bad heart-- frequent among country club type elitists, who Bush described as his base.
So you think it's better for the kids to have to live with drugged up parents on welfare? Ridiculous. There are much better alternatives out there for the kids.
Nowadays, many life insurance companies check for the existence of narcotics and illegal drugs prior to issuing the policy.
It is telling that you believe that everyone who would be caught up in this policy is "drugged up." Go out and get a clue.
Perhaps. I wouldn't be for that, either. It is another example of intrusion into the personal lives of people by business, with the active, IMO, encouragement of the previous administration and Congress. At least an argument could be made in that instance. I wouldn't buy it, but I think it is a bit different situation than the work related issues I'm against.
moon, it is a disgrace that you attempt to glorify drug usage through your constant propagandizing. Do you realize that drugs are a very bad mix with children? Surely you are able to grasp that concept. SURELY. This whole line of questioning by you and the other druggie sympathizers really chaps my hide! You and your ilk try to make a play towards people's emotions by saying that because of the involvement of children, then society should literally hand money to drugged up parents. I reject that assertion. It is rejected. Parents that are on drugs and welfare simultaneously are unfit for parenting. That is a proven fact, backed up by science. The more handouts we give these people, the more they are incentivized to continue to suck on the government teet, all the while corrupting the young and innocent lives of their children. This is a travesty and I will not stand idly by and watch this occur. Instead of handing these parents money (welfare), we should be handing them over to privately run work camps, where we can break them of their addiction and also benefit economically from the low cost labor. That's a win-win solution.
Beats me. Do we have one? I can only speak for one Democrat, me. And I'd prefer to drop the official "War on Drugs" hype. We've got enough wars going on, already, thank you very much!
It sounds like the Dems are not doing very much. That is just another reason why they are no better than the Republicans. link: http://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence Step 2. End Prohibition Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk. What's more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prohibition puts your property at risk. Finally, nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. The bottom line? By ending drug prohibition Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention, and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood.
The same as the Republican one, it is stupidity codified into law. The only parties that have this right are the Libertarians (who you quoted in a later post) and the Greens, both of whom I disagree with on a number of issues.
This kind of conformity is exactly the type of thing that our country was founded against. I guess you would say the same thing if the government wanted to start regular searches of everyone's home. You're not hiding anything, right? Why should a "random" screening of the .gov or your would be employer deter you standing up for your privacy and rights and belief in concepts such as innocent until proven guilty? It would be great, too, you know, armed strangers with an attitude of "My job is hard, I'm not putting up with people or their idiosyncrasies so don't get in my way" type of attitude like the one that Moats just experienced... all busting down random doors with no provocation whatsoever, you know, just to make SURE everyone is in line. We could do it like this, and start it with the poor people who really need something, and who can't fight back... and later, when no one is looking, use that practice and fake statistical successes as precedent... next thing you know, we're all in matrix pods, plugged in and oblivious to what life once was for everyone in a pseudo free country. I know what you're saying, "I'm not doing anything wrong, and if I want what they have, I'll do it" but realize those decisions have long term consequences on us all, and one day, we'll all be sorry if we give up basic freedoms for this slight amount of {faux} security and control.
