|
That is a horrible and immoral idea, because people who have done drugs are not thereafter bad people who should never be helped. Throwing them is prison is stupid enough. Refusing help after they get out? They'll probably just turn to crime and do more drugs if they can't get some assistance to build a new life. They mostly do that already, so why would refusing help improve that? Furthermore, one chance is not exactly realistic, because relapses are abundantly common.Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
Simple answer, do not use drugs. not that ^%$#ing hard to understand. Once is a screw up and most use for a long time before getting caught once. Of course this evil is why i think all producers and sellers should hang.
That is a horrible and immoral idea, because people who have done drugs are not thereafter bad people who should never be helped. Throwing them is prison is stupid enough. Refusing help after they get out? They'll probably just turn to crime and do more drugs if they can't get some assistance to build a new life. They mostly do that already, so why would refusing help improve that? Furthermore, one chance is not exactly realistic, because relapses are abundantly common.Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
"Because I don't have an addictive personality or genetic predisposition or environmental factors beyond my control that lead me to do drugs, so anyone else who does drugs must just be an awful person!"
|
|
Common ground can be had occasionally. It is hard when most here are highly liberal pro socialism and i am mostly conservative and oppose taking what we earn and believe in personal responsibility being very important. The funny part is that my hands off belief in religion and morality get me called too liberal in conservative forums....
Please tell me what role her "personal responsibility" played in this girl's circumstances
Link.
Her parents. and if they cannot be parents before doing what they damn well please they do not deserve kids.
"What about the kids" is the sickest argument ever because then we cannot do anything to punish anything and everyone must get a handout untill the system falls because we cannot risk those kids to put daddy the breadwinner who happens to be a rapist or mugger in jail and the taxpayers will suffer any burden to care for the masses that realize work is optional.|
|
"Because I don't have an addictive personality or genetic predisposition or environmental factors beyond my control that lead me to do drugs, so anyone else who does drugs must just be an awful person!"That is a horrible and immoral idea, because people who have done drugs are not thereafter bad people who should never be helped. Throwing them is prison is stupid enough. Refusing help after they get out? They'll probably just turn to crime and do more drugs if they can't get some assistance to build a new life. They mostly do that already, so why would refusing help improve that? Furthermore, one chance is not exactly realistic, because relapses are abundantly common.Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
Were you addicted before your first use? The second? (especially when each is a crime...)
Did you seek help when you realized you had an issue? Or did you use and use because you wanted to in the face of the law or being a legitimate person?
Making stupid mistakes is a natural part of humanity. Every does it.Simple answer, do not use drugs. not that ^%$#ing hard to understand.That is a horrible and immoral idea, because people who have done drugs are not thereafter bad people who should never be helped. Throwing them is prison is stupid enough. Refusing help after they get out? They'll probably just turn to crime and do more drugs if they can't get some assistance to build a new life. They mostly do that already, so why would refusing help improve that? Furthermore, one chance is not exactly realistic, because relapses are abundantly common.Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
Once is a screw up and most use for a long time before getting caught once.By which time addiction has set in heavily enough that jail or an admonishment to take personal responsibility is woefully inadequate at fixing the problem.
Of course this evil is why i think all producers and sellers should hang.
We've tried dropping the hammer on punishment over and over again. It doesn't actually work.
Common ground can be had occasionally. It is hard when most here are highly liberal pro socialism and i am mostly conservative and oppose taking what we earn and believe in personal responsibility being very important. The funny part is that my hands off belief in religion and morality get me called too liberal in conservative forums....
Please tell me what role her "personal responsibility" played in this girl's circumstances
Link.
Her parents. and if they cannot be parents before doing what they damn well please they do not deserve kids.
"What about the kids" is the sickest argument ever because then we cannot do anything to punish anything and everyone must get a handout untill the system falls because we cannot risk those kids to put daddy the breadwinner who happens to be a rapist or mugger in jail and the taxpayers will suffer any burden to care for the masses that realize work is optional.
No..... you're vilifying again. Stop it. Just because "Daddy" is impoverished doesn't mean he's a rapist or mugger. Were you in a coma during the recession?
|
|
So what i am hearing here is everyone that is a drug user, criminal or refuses to work is just a poor misunderstood person that the state should care for craddle to grave generation after generation until the economy collapses under the weight of it or the common man realizes that working is a suckers game and joins the takers. Nice. Srew being responsible. sex drugs and rock and roll, let those burdened with moral pay the price.
"Because I don't have an addictive personality or genetic predisposition or environmental factors beyond my control that lead me to do drugs, so anyone else who does drugs must just be an awful person!"That is a horrible and immoral idea, because people who have done drugs are not thereafter bad people who should never be helped. Throwing them is prison is stupid enough. Refusing help after they get out? They'll probably just turn to crime and do more drugs if they can't get some assistance to build a new life. They mostly do that already, so why would refusing help improve that? Furthermore, one chance is not exactly realistic, because relapses are abundantly common.Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
Were you addicted before your first use? The second? (especially when each is a crime...)
Did you seek help when you realized you had an issue? Or did you use and use because you wanted to in the face of the law or being a legitimate person?
You're so incapable of looking beyond your own situation it saddens me.....
Were you addicted before your first use? The second? (especially when each is a crime...)"Because I don't have an addictive personality or genetic predisposition or environmental factors beyond my control that lead me to do drugs, so anyone else who does drugs must just be an awful person!"That is a horrible and immoral idea, because people who have done drugs are not thereafter bad people who should never be helped. Throwing them is prison is stupid enough. Refusing help after they get out? They'll probably just turn to crime and do more drugs if they can't get some assistance to build a new life. They mostly do that already, so why would refusing help improve that? Furthermore, one chance is not exactly realistic, because relapses are abundantly common.Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
It depends on the individual person. Some are more predisposed than others, and some can addict at the first use or two.
Can't really blame people when heroin makes them feel better than they have ever felt before. Of course they want to go and do that again.
Did you seek help when you realized you had an issue?This is chemical addiction we are talking about. Usually people have to be forced.
Or did you use and use because you wanted to in the face of the law or being a legitimate person?
Find me someone that hasn't flown in the face of the law at some point.
|
|
No..... you're vilifying again. Stop it. Just because "Daddy" is impoverished doesn't mean he's a rapist or mugger. Were you in a coma during the recession?Common ground can be had occasionally. It is hard when most here are highly liberal pro socialism and i am mostly conservative and oppose taking what we earn and believe in personal responsibility being very important. The funny part is that my hands off belief in religion and morality get me called too liberal in conservative forums....
Please tell me what role her "personal responsibility" played in this girl's circumstances
Link.
Her parents. and if they cannot be parents before doing what they damn well please they do not deserve kids.
"What about the kids" is the sickest argument ever because then we cannot do anything to punish anything and everyone must get a handout untill the system falls because we cannot risk those kids to put daddy the breadwinner who happens to be a rapist or mugger in jail and the taxpayers will suffer any burden to care for the masses that realize work is optional.
Um no i said that if daddy is the sole bread winner you, by the morality you guys are offering, cannot put him in jail for being a rapist or mugger because that would be punishing his children. Think about the children after all....
So what i am hearing here is everyone that is a drug user, criminal or refuses to work is just a poor misunderstood person that the state should care for craddle to grave generation after generation until the economy collapses under the weight of it or the common man realizes that working is a suckers game and joins the takers. Nice. Srew being responsible. sex drugs and rock and roll, let those burdened with moral pay the price.
lovely strawman, nothing close to what was actually said.
So what i am hearing here is everyone that is a drug user, criminal or refuses to work is just a poor misunderstood person that the state should care for craddle to grave generation after generation until the economy collapses under the weight of it or the common man realizes that working is a suckers game and joins the takers. Nice. Srew being responsible. sex drugs and rock and roll, let those burdened with moral pay the price.
No, now you're straw manning into a false dichotomy. PEOPLE ARE COMPLICATED! Just. Like. You.
Ninja'd
|
|
Were you addicted before your first use? The second? (especially when each is a crime...)"Because I don't have an addictive personality or genetic predisposition or environmental factors beyond my control that lead me to do drugs, so anyone else who does drugs must just be an awful person!"That is a horrible and immoral idea, because people who have done drugs are not thereafter bad people who should never be helped. Throwing them is prison is stupid enough. Refusing help after they get out? They'll probably just turn to crime and do more drugs if they can't get some assistance to build a new life. They mostly do that already, so why would refusing help improve that? Furthermore, one chance is not exactly realistic, because relapses are abundantly common.Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
It depends on the individual person. Some are more predisposed than others, and some can addict at the first use or two.
Can't really blame people when heroin makes them feel better than they have ever felt before. Of course they want to go and do that again.
Did you seek help when you realized you had an issue?This is chemical addiction we...
I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.
People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.
I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism. It's almost as if trying to understand and work with people's problems works better calling them a stupid criminal drug addict and throwing them in a cell with other stupid criminals for a few years.
|
|
So what i am hearing here is everyone that is a drug user, criminal or refuses to work is just a poor misunderstood person that the state should care for craddle to grave generation after generation until the economy collapses under the weight of it or the common man realizes that working is a suckers game and joins the takers. Nice. Srew being responsible. sex drugs and rock and roll, let those burdened with moral pay the price.No, now you're straw manning into a false dichotomy. PEOPLE ARE COMPLICATED! Just. Like. You.
You know what isn't complicated? follow the law. That simple, is it illegal? don't do it. WORK, do your damnedest to stay employed. Do not put vice before responsibility. These are not complicated things and were a given for the majority of human history. Only recently have they become an option and forcing others to pay the piper for your actions became an option
Um no i said that if daddy is the sole bread winner you, by the morality you guys are offering, cannot put him in jail for being a rapist or mugger because that would be punishing his children. Think about the children after all....No..... you're vilifying again. Stop it. Just because "Daddy" is impoverished doesn't mean he's a rapist or mugger. Were you in a coma during the recession?Common ground can be had occasionally. It is hard when most here are highly liberal pro socialism and i am mostly conservative and oppose taking what we earn and believe in personal responsibility being very important. The funny part is that my hands off belief in religion and morality get me called too liberal in conservative forums....
Please tell me what role her "personal responsibility" played in this girl's circumstances
Link.
Her parents. and if they cannot be parents before doing what they damn well please they do not deserve kids.
"What about the kids" is the sickest argument ever because then we cannot do anything to punish anything and everyone must get a handout untill the system falls because we cannot risk those kids to put daddy the breadwinner who happens to be a rapist or mugger in jail and the taxpayers will suffer any burden to care for the masses that realize work is optional.
Oh, my mistake. You were simply making another straw man. If the dad is a rapist, put him in jail. But should every person who lost their job/house in the recession have their children taken away from them?
|
|
I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.
|
|
Oh, my mistake. You were simply making another straw man. If the dad is a rapist, put him in jail. But should every person who lost their job/house in the recession have their children taken away from them?Um no i said that if daddy is the sole bread winner you, by the morality you guys are offering, cannot put him in jail for being a rapist or mugger because that would be punishing his children. Think about the children after all....No..... you're vilifying again. Stop it. Just because "Daddy" is impoverished doesn't mean he's a rapist or mugger. Were you in a coma during the recession?Common ground can be had occasionally. It is hard when most here are highly liberal pro socialism and i am mostly conservative and oppose taking what we earn and believe in personal responsibility being very important. The funny part is that my hands off belief in religion and morality get me called too liberal in conservative forums....
Please tell me what role her "personal responsibility" played in this girl's circumstances
Link.
Her parents. and if they cannot be parents before doing what they damn well please they do not deserve kids.
"What about the kids" is the sickest argument ever because then we cannot do anything to punish anything and everyone must get a handout untill the system falls because we cannot risk those kids to put daddy the breadwinner who happens to be a rapist or mugger in jail and the taxpayers will suffer any burden to care for the masses that realize work is optional.
If they smoked and drank the rent money? HELL YES. If they tried to do right but life is not fair that is not the same at all.
I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?
You know what isn't complicated? follow the law. That simple, is it illegal? don't do it. WORK, do your damnedest to stay employed. Do not put vice before responsibility. These are not complicated things and were a given for the majority of human history. Only recently have they become an option and forcing others to pay the piper for your actions became an optionSo what i am hearing here is everyone that is a drug user, criminal or refuses to work is just a poor misunderstood person that the state should care for craddle to grave generation after generation until the economy collapses under the weight of it or the common man realizes that working is a suckers game and joins the takers. Nice. Srew being responsible. sex drugs and rock and roll, let those burdened with moral pay the price.No, now you're straw manning into a false dichotomy. PEOPLE ARE COMPLICATED! Just. Like. You.
Not complicated? Is that why "wrongful execution" is a term? Or "recession"? Is that why "acquittals" are a thing? "Depression" or "Psychological disorder"? Yep, good thing none of those exist. It's so simple isn't it?
EDIT: I meant "appeals" not acquittals. But since they don't exist anyway I guess it doesn't matter.
|
|
I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.
People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.
Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.
If they smoked and drank the rent money? HELL YES. If they tried to do right but life is not fair that is not the same at all.Oh, my mistake. You were simply making another straw man. If the dad is a rapist, put him in jail. But should every person who lost their job/house in the recession have their children taken away from them?Um no i said that if daddy is the sole bread winner you, by the morality you guys are offering, cannot put him in jail for being a rapist or mugger because that would be punishing his children. Think about the children after all....No..... you're vilifying again. Stop it. Just because "Daddy" is impoverished doesn't mean he's a rapist or mugger. Were you in a coma during the recession?Common ground can be had occasionally. It is hard when most here are highly liberal pro socialism and i am mostly conservative and oppose taking what we earn and believe in personal responsibility being very important. The funny part is that my hands off belief in religion and morality get me called too liberal in conservative forums....
Please tell me what role her "personal responsibility" played in this girl's circumstances
Link.
Her parents. and if they cannot be parents before doing what they damn well please they do not deserve kids.
"What about the kids" is the sickest argument ever because then we cannot do anything to punish anything and everyone must get a handout untill the system falls because we cannot risk those kids to put daddy the breadwinner who happens to be a rapist or mugger in jail and the taxpayers will suffer any burden to care for the masses that realize work is optional.
And you get to be the arbiter of who is in which group?
Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.
People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.
Then find an incentive to do right.
|
|
And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.
Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.
People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.
Yeah, if we feed people they'll be incentivized to keep living. Just like teaching people about seat belts incentivizes them to drive recklessly.
|
|
Then find an incentive to do right.Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.
People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.
Food, a roof over your head, a doctor, possessions. Those are the incentive to work and not piss away money on vices. When the state gives you all those with money taken from others what is the reason to work hard and live right?
|
|
Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
Cravings exist, to use or not is a choice.
Andrew R: What do you think it costs you, personally, in dollars per year, to support the healthcare for all of those drug addicts and moochers you want off the system?
Food, a roof over your head, a doctor, possessions. Those are the incentive to work and not piss away money on vices. When the state gives you all those with money taken from others what is the reason to work hard and live right?Then find an incentive to do right.Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.
People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.
Well then why don't you do that? You don't want to? Well maybe other people don't want to either. Maybe sometimes circumstance beyond their control causes people who don't want handouts to need them for their families. But that doesn't mean they're moochers. Not everyone not you is on drugs all the time.
And a doctor should not be an incentive to work.....
Cravings exist, to use or not is a choice.Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
As someone who has never used any illegal substance, has never smoked a cigarette, and has never even tasted alcohol - and never had any remote desire to do any of those things- I say to you: Quit throwing stones from your Ivory Tower.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Food, a roof over your head, a doctor, possessions. Those are the incentive to work and not piss away money on vices.Then find an incentive to do right.Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.
People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.
Assuming you actually find work that pays you enough for those incentives. In the ghetto? Pretty good chance you can't, because that kind of job is in very short supply.
When the state gives you all those with money taken from others what is the reason to work hard and live right?
When we were on welfare, my mom worked extra hours (Yes, people on welfare do very often have jobs. At that point, both my parents did. My dad is on housing assistance now, and he has a full time job in a supervisory position.) to get us off as soon as possible. Not only was it not a lot of money for a four person family in urban California, the hit to our pride from having to take welfare was pretty devastating. Are there abusers? Certainly. Could changes be made? Certainly. That does not translate into no incentives to get off not existing.
|
|
Food, a roof over your head, a doctor, possessions. Those are the incentive to work and not piss away money on vices.Then find an incentive to do right.Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.
People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.
Assuming you actually find work that pays you enough for those incentives. In the ghetto? Pretty good chance you can't, because that kind of job is in very short supply.
When the state gives you all those with money taken from others what is the reason to work hard and live right?When we were on welfare, my mom worked extra hours (Yes, people on welfare do very often have jobs. At that point, both my parents did. My dad is on housing assistance now, and he has a full time job in a supervisory position.) to get us off as soon as possible. Not only was it not a lot of money for a four person family in urban California, the hit to our pride from having to take welfare was pretty devastating. Are there abusers? Certainly. Could changes be made? Certainly. That does not translate into no incentives to get off not existing.
Your family had an incentive. Pride, the desire to be legitimate people. Without that abusers can kick back and relax for life, laughing at the suckers. Temporary help for people trying to do right I am fully behind. a lifestyle choice not so much
|
|
As someone who has never used any illegal substance, has never smoked a cigarette, and has never even tasted alcohol - and never had any remote desire to do any of those things- I say to you: Quit throwing stones from your Ivory Tower.Cravings exist, to use or not is a choice.Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
My ivory tower? I live in an area barely better than a ghetto working retail for barely above minimum wage. I am one of the VERY few in this area not on welfare. Of course i am also one of the few making smart choices to be able to care for myself, not living on junkfood and smoking weed and cigarettes daily. Might be a connection there. Might be a reason i have a little money in the bank and no debt. Choice
My ivory tower? I live in an area barely better than a ghetto working retail for barely above minimum wage. I am one of the VERY few in this area not on welfare. Of course i am also one of the few making smart choices to be able to care for myself, not living on junkfood and smoking weed and cigarettes daily. Might be a connection there. Might be a reason i have a little money in the bank and no debt. ChoiceAs someone who has never used any illegal substance, has never smoked a cigarette, and has never even tasted alcohol - and never had any remote desire to do any of those things- I say to you: Quit throwing stones from your Ivory Tower.Cravings exist, to use or not is a choice.Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
I didn't mean Ivory Tower literally. None of what you said would inform you on the struggles of dealing with addiction. Something I can say I personally know nothing about. But something I can understand. You lack understanding, and you seem to lack empathy.
|
|
...Traditionally, health insurance had a monthly premium and small amounts to pay for specific services. For example, generic drugs (drugs that don't have an active patent on them) might cost you $10 for a 30-day supply. Brand-Name drugs (new drugs that have patents on them so competitors can't make cheaper generics) might be $45 for a 30-day supply. A dr visit might be $25, for example....
Now. Since the healthcare law has been implemented, a form of plan has blossomed that reduces the coverage for members. In essence, you now pay a percentage of the negotiated rate for prescriptions, dr appts, hospital stays, etc... Of course, now there's a deductible, so you may be paying hundreds of dollars a month, but if you're healthy, you're still paying full price out of pocket for all medical services and prescriptions until you've paid $1,000 or more out of your own pocket, and then the "discount" applies.
In theory, there's a maximum out of pocket amount per year that, if you spend that much, the insurance covers 100% of costs. However, that's being chipped away at, too, on many plans. Of course, when this amount is $10,000 or more per year, you can see how someone with a catastrophic illness may still go bankrupt. Of course, if you can't pay your share, you suddenly find yourself unable to get medicines and services.
The few doctors that I know are very frustrated with this system. Often their hands are tied because their patients can't afford the out-of-pocket costs for their medications or treatments. So we still have a huge problem with medical bankruptcies.
It gets more complicated as insurers make lists of drugs that they'll pay for called formularies, which can change in the middle of your plan year (so you can suddenly find out that your insurance won't pay for your insulin, for example, as happened to me).
Also, insurers have started denying claims because they claim the patient had other insurance available and won't pay the claim unless the patient provides a
The health care exchanges offer crap plans than most can afford, better ones that fewer can afford. Deductibles are still putting basic care out of reach of many people but have been a tremendous boon to the very sick. that boon is going to end up costing the mostly healthy that can in many cases can barely pay the premiums now. It did nothing to make it affordable to the masses, making its name a lie to me.
Your family had an incentive. Pride, the desire to be legitimate people. Without that abusers can kick back and relax for life, laughing at the suckers. Temporary help for people trying to do right I am fully behind. a lifestyle choice not so muchFood, a roof over your head, a doctor, possessions. Those are the incentive to work and not piss away money on vices.Then find an incentive to do right.Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.
People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.
Assuming you actually find work that pays you enough for those incentives. In the ghetto? Pretty good chance you can't, because that kind of job is in very short supply.
When the state gives you all those with money taken from others what is the reason to work hard and live right?When we were on welfare, my mom worked extra hours (Yes, people on welfare do very often have jobs. At that point, both my parents did. My dad is on housing assistance now, and he has a full time job in a supervisory position.) to get us off as soon as possible. Not only was it not a lot of money for a four person family in urban California, the hit to our pride from having to take welfare was pretty devastating. Are there abusers? Certainly. Could changes be made? Certainly. That does not translate into no incentives to get off not existing.
And again, who gets to say who is in which group? You? Guess what? Just like YOU, most people want to be "legitimate people".
Are you aware that the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients, in addition to working, are also on the program less than two years?
|
|
I didn't mean Ivory Tower literally. None of what you said would inform you on the struggles of dealing with addiction. Something I can say I personally know nothing about. But something I can understand. You lack understanding, and you seem to lack empathy.My ivory tower? I live in an area barely better than a ghetto working retail for barely above minimum wage. I am one of the VERY few in this area not on welfare. Of course i am also one of the few making smart choices to be able to care for myself, not living on junkfood and smoking weed and cigarettes daily. Might be a connection there. Might be a reason i have a little money in the bank and no debt. ChoiceAs someone who has never used any illegal substance, has never smoked a cigarette, and has never even tasted alcohol - and never had any remote desire to do any of those things- I say to you: Quit throwing stones from your Ivory Tower.Cravings exist, to use or not is a choice.Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
The pot heads insist that it isn't addictive though.....and no i do not feel bad for them if they smoke up their rent and go homeless.
|
|
And again, who gets to say who is in which group? You? Guess...Your family had an incentive. Pride, the desire to be legitimate people. Without that abusers can kick back and relax for life, laughing at the suckers. Temporary help for people trying to do right I am fully behind. a lifestyle choice not so muchFood, a roof over your head, a doctor, possessions. Those are the incentive to work and not piss away money on vices.Then find an incentive to do right.Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.
People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.
Assuming you actually find work that pays you enough for those incentives. In the ghetto? Pretty good chance you can't, because that kind of job is in very short supply.
When the state gives you all those with money taken from others what is the reason to work hard and live right?When we were on welfare, my mom worked extra hours (Yes, people on welfare do very often have jobs. At that point, both my parents did. My dad is on housing assistance now, and he has a full time job in a supervisory position.) to get us off as soon as possible. Not only was it not a lot of money for a four person family in urban California, the hit to our pride from having to take welfare was pretty devastating. Are there abusers? Certainly. Could changes be made? Certainly. That does not translate into no incentives to get off not existing.
Then time limits and strings attached should be no problem then
The health care exchanges offer crap plans than most can afford, better ones that fewer can afford. Deductibles are still putting basic care out of reach of many people but have been a tremendous boon to the very sick. that boon is going to end up costing the mostly healthy that can in many cases can barely pay the premiums now. It did nothing to make it affordable to the masses, making its name a lie to me.
Thanks to the subsidies, a lot of poor people can get "silver tier" plans for $0-25/month. That from what I've seen are as good as or better than the plans a lot of people had before the ACA, since it also institutes minimum coverage requirements.
Also, basic care is typically covered by co-pays and mandatory free preventative care, not deductibles.
The sick costing the mostly healthy has been how insurance has always worked. But you're right, we should just go single payer.
Then time limits and strings attached should be no problem then
Good thing both of those already exist as part of the programs!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The pot heads insist that it isn't addictive...I didn't mean Ivory Tower literally. None of what you said would inform you on the struggles of dealing with addiction. Something I can say I personally know nothing about. But something I can understand. You lack understanding, and you seem to lack empathy.My ivory tower? I live in an area barely better than a ghetto working retail for barely above minimum wage. I am one of the VERY few in this area not on welfare. Of course i am also one of the few making smart choices to be able to care for myself, not living on junkfood and smoking weed and cigarettes daily. Might be a connection there. Might be a reason i have a little money in the bank and no debt. ChoiceAs someone who has never used any illegal substance, has never smoked a cigarette, and has never even tasted alcohol - and never had any remote desire to do any of those things- I say to you: Quit throwing stones from your Ivory Tower.Cravings exist, to use or not is a choice.Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
I have met a lot of potheads and I would describe no more than 1 of them as addicted, if that. ANd I know zero who were ever at any risk of going broke or homeless from their habit anymore than a cigarette smoker. You're talking about people who don't exist.
All the research I've seen is that pot is comparable to alcohol in terms of effect. My drinking certainly doesn't interfere with my responsibilities, so I could see the argument that one can be a pot smoker and still be a productive member of society.
|
|
...The pot heads insistI didn't mean Ivory Tower literally. None of what you said would inform you on the struggles of dealing with addiction. Something I can say I personally know nothing about. But something I can understand. You lack understanding, and you seem to lack empathy.My ivory tower? I live in an area barely better than a ghetto working retail for barely above minimum wage. I am one of the VERY few in this area not on welfare. Of course i am also one of the few making smart choices to be able to care for myself, not living on junkfood and smoking weed and cigarettes daily. Might be a connection there. Might be a reason i have a little money in the bank and no debt. ChoiceAs someone who has never used any illegal substance, has never smoked a cigarette, and has never even tasted alcohol - and never had any remote desire to do any of those things- I say to you: Quit throwing stones from your Ivory Tower.Cravings exist, to use or not is a choice.Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
No i am talking about the majority in my area that smoke tobacco and weed daily and might not afford food or housing if the government was not giving it to them free. And no few BRAG about how much they get.
|
|
All the research I've seen is that pot is comparable to alcohol in terms of effect. My drinking certainly doesn't interfere with my responsibilities, so I could see the argument that one can be a pot smoker and still be a productive member of society.
True so they cannot even ride the "poor me blame addiction" excuse as they demand free stuff from the pockets of others
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And no few BRAG about how much they get.
This is what is known as a vocal minority.
And, "might not"? So you might be talking about people who don't exist?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All the research I've seen is that pot is comparable to alcohol in terms of effect. My drinking certainly doesn't interfere with my responsibilities, so I could see the argument that one can be a pot smoker and still be a productive member of society.True so they cannot even ride the "poor me blame addiction" excuse as they demand free stuff from the pockets of others
And yet stealing your pants is perfectly acceptable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well this thread went sideways fast.
Look, I'm all for treating drug abuse like a disease like a crime, because most abuse can be ameliorated and users can be rehabilitated. Not all, but most.
My problem is this, Andrew: What about alcohol? That's a drug. In most meaningful ways it's far more dangerous than most recreational drugs other than heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, and PCP.
I'm staunchly pro-drug, even if I don't partake often. Full disclosure, it's been about 4 1/2 years since I've smoked marijuana (not my favorite drug) and almost 14 since I dropped acid (my favorite drug). My girlfriend's whole family is potheads and it borderline makes me uncomfortable when we can't go to dinner there without them busting out the pipes, cuz I don't smoke.
My gf's dad smokes basically every day. He also works 50-60 hours a work as a maintenance technician, and never works high. Where you might have a couple brews, he has a couple of tokes. He provides for his wife and family, and is otherwise a law-abiding, tax-paying average joe. Marijuana is becoming just another working class escape, and I don't think users should be locked up because Andre R hates hippies.