Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

96% of Florida welfare cash recipients pass drug tests.Follow

#52 Aug 29 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So do you want people with a drug problem to starve to death or just steal stuff until we jail them and have to feed and house them?


No silly you're supposed to hang them... Smiley: oyvey

For serious though, I'm not really sure there's a best answer for how to deal with the people who are just a drain on society.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#53 Aug 29 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,567 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So do you want people with a drug problem to starve to death or just steal stuff until we jail them and have to feed and house them?

False dichotomy is false.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#54 Aug 29 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Default
**
505 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
Would you support drug tests for drivers licenses? Bus passes?



Personally, I think we should drug test every Over The Road truck driver and fire anyone whose system wasn't full of crank or meth or blow.


Seriously, 80,000lbs of rolling death, driving 10-11 hours a day, everyday. Dem boys need to be wide the **** awake if ya ask me, but no one did, so I'll just mosey along now.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#55 Aug 29 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
More importantly, since tax money goes to all government employees, does gbaji want them all tested. too?

Howsabout it gbaji? If a gov employee tests positive we fire them and they cant get any gov job after, right?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#56 Aug 29 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
I have a question. What happens when one of these people fails a drug test? Are they just cut off, or offered treatment or something?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#57 Aug 29 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
someproteinguy wrote:


For serious though, I'm not really sure there's a best answer for how to deal with the people who are just a drain on society.
For the record, gbaji advocates letting them die.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#58 Aug 29 2011 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So do you want people with a drug problem to starve to death or just steal stuff until we jail them and have to feed and house them?


No. We want people with drug problems to address the problems so that their lives will improve. The alternative is what? Giving people with drug problems free food and housing anyway without even attempting to get them to quit?

Using the statistics in the OP, one solution helps nudge 96% of those receiving welfare to not use drugs, perhaps helping them improve their lives in the long run, with the downside that 4% wont get government benefits and may end out in jail. The other solution gives up on 100% of them.

I'll ask again: Why do you hate poor people? Smiley: frown
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Aug 29 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:


For serious though, I'm not really sure there's a best answer for how to deal with the people who are just a drain on society.
For the record, gbaji advocates letting them die.


No. I believe that giving them a free ride is the worst approach to a situation which doesn't have any perfectly good answer. You're playing the "your solution isn't perfect, so do it my way" game. In the real world, it's about which solution is "better".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Aug 29 2011 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
If the people who fail are given an option for treatment, I'd be fine with it. Addiction isn't something just solved by snapping your fingers.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#61 Aug 29 2011 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
Demea wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So do you want people with a drug problem to starve to death or just steal stuff until we jail them and have to feed and house them?

False dichotomy is false.
That's fair, they could just drop their addiction just like that, and become normal, productive members of society. It happens all the time, amirite?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#62 Aug 29 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:


For serious though, I'm not really sure there's a best answer for how to deal with the people who are just a drain on society.
For the record, gbaji advocates letting them die.


No. I believe that giving them a free ride is the worst approach to a situation which doesn't have any perfectly good answer. You're playing the "your solution isn't perfect, so do it my way" game. In the real world, it's about which solution is "better".


No. You are lying. We all know your view on the poor.

Nice try, though.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#63 Aug 29 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
If the people who fail are given an option for treatment, I'd be fine with it. Addiction isn't something just solved by snapping your fingers.


/shrug

It's also not something solved by just ignoring it and handing people welfare checks. Like I said, it's the better of a host of imperfect solutions. At least this way, those who are borderline and can pull themselves out of their drug use have a better chance of doing so if they know that it's a condition of the help they are receiving, while those who can't or wont stop using can at least be identified and/or are forced into a set of actions in response to their own addiction issues.

I'm most concerned about nudging that larger percentage on the right path. Helping those in the second group is important, but not if the process we use to help them results in more people ending out in their condition in the first place. It's one of the issues I have with most social safety nets. They help the symptoms of a problem, but tend to make the cause more frequent. This is at least a step in the right direction IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Aug 29 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
No. You are lying. We all know your view on the poor.


Well, we know your version of my view at least! Thats something I suppose.

Edited, Aug 29th 2011 3:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Aug 29 2011 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
How do we make sure the the kids of these people get food? Should we start building some more orphanages?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#66 Aug 29 2011 at 4:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
How do we make sure the the kids of these people get food? Should we start building some more orphanages?


You're still just looking at the symptoms. You're also still playing the "your solution isn't perfect" game. What's the alternative? We actively expend resources to help keep children in homes with drug addicted parents? If the cost of getting a thousand parents to stop using drugs for the sake of ensuring that their children are fed and housed is that 20 parents will continue to use drugs, but now can't get welfare and will likely lose their children somehow, I'm frankly not seeing that as a problem.

Yeah. It sucks for the kids of those 20 parents, but it would have sucked for them anyway. And it may just be better to get them out of those homes earlier rather than later. And in the meantime, we potentially make things much much better for many times more kids. It's not "perfect", but it's "better".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Aug 29 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
When choosing between separating kids from their parents, or housing those kids with their drug-addicted parents, I'm not sure how anyone could use the word 'better' for either option. Seems like one of those things a sociologist could study for dozens of years with mixed results. A general policy ignoring specifics and what not. Not that we really have the resources atm to tailor a solution to every situation...

*ramble ramble*

*loses train of thought*

Edited, Aug 29th 2011 3:55pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#68 Aug 29 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So do you want people with a drug problem to starve to death or just steal stuff until we jail them and have to feed and house them?


Would be less costly and less cruel to just let them overdose on drugs in that case.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#69Princess ShadorVIII, Posted: Aug 29 2011 at 6:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Indeed. Most problems, when left alone, have a way of working themselves out.
#70 Aug 29 2011 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Shador, why do you even bother having opinions?

Serious question.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#71 Aug 29 2011 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
We also have to address the issue of what can be called a "drug problem". Is it the guy who works 50 hours a week and smokes pot in the evenings, or the woman with three kids who collects welfare and drinks a liter of vodka a day?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#72 Aug 29 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
When choosing between separating kids from their parents, or housing those kids with their drug-addicted parents, I'm not sure how anyone could use the word 'better' for either option.


But that goes in both directions, right? Neither is an ideal result, but we are ultimately making that choice anyway. Looking the other way and pretending that we haven't made a choice by default just seems incredibly stupid. We're kidding ourselves.

And again, this only addresses the case of parents who can't or wont stop using drugs (even if just sufficiently to pass the tests). For the other 96%, we've either not impacted them at all *or* we've provided that nudge to not use drugs (or use them less). That's a net positive IMO. So we have a significant positive on one hand (some likely large number of kids who will be with their parents, but who's parents wont be using drugs who might have otherwise), and at worst a break even among the 4% who will still use drugs.

Even if the results for taking children out of a drug users home versus keeping them in that home and providing them welfare are equal (and I'm pretty sure they aren't), we should still do this. You'd have to show that the negative effects of forcing that smaller group into choosing their drugs or their children is so much greater that it outweighs the general benefits to the larger group. And I just don't think you (or anyone) can make a strong case for that.

Quote:
Seems like one of those things a sociologist could study for dozens of years with mixed results. A general policy ignoring specifics and what not. Not that we really have the resources atm to tailor a solution to every situation...


Yup. So in the absence of overwhelmingly strong evidence that kids are better off living off welfare in the home of a drug addicted parent than being separated from that parent, we should do the drug tests.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Aug 29 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
The best solution is abortions all around!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Aug 29 2011 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Debalic wrote:
We also have to address the issue of what can be called a "drug problem". Is it the guy who works 50 hours a week and smokes pot in the evenings, or the woman with three kids who collects welfare and drinks a liter of vodka a day?


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the guy working 50 hours a week isn't collecting a welfare check, so it's not quite the dilemma you make it out to be.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Aug 29 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
We also have to address the issue of what can be called a "drug problem". Is it the guy who works 50 hours a week and smokes pot in the evenings, or the woman with three kids who collects welfare and drinks a liter of vodka a day?


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the guy working 50 hours a week isn't collecting a welfare check, so it's not quite the dilemma you make it out to be.

Sure it is. The guy gets a drug test sprung on him, bam he's no longer a productive member of society. But mummy dearest can drink till her liver's pickled and keep pulling in those checks.

Sorry, I guess I strayed from the original topic and went with the system-wide drug testing.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#76 Aug 29 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the guy working 50 hours a week isn't collecting a welfare check, so it's not quite the dilemma you make it out to be.

Just so you know, working 50 hours a week every week of the year at minimum wage in most states puts you below the poverty line for a family of four (assuming this person is the sole income provider).
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 36 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (36)