Why druggies don't work

[GIThruster]

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/12/2 ... f-welfare/

[williatw]

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/12/2 ... f-welfare/

Sorry...but this is an argument for demanding welfare/food stamp recipients work for their benefits not an argument for drug prohibition.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3327&hilit=+welfare

My views on welfare/foodstamps go like this:

Instead of the existing welfare/food stamp system I have an alternative. Any one, who receives any type of government largess, be it welfare/food stamps/ lives in government paid housing, who is of working age lets say 18-65. This person is required to work at least 35 hours a week at no less than minimum wage. Instead of a welfare check, he/she must work 8 hours a day five days a week paid minimum wage at least. If he can't find private employment the government will find something they can do for pay. He/she may find themselves fixing potholes, sorting garbage at the waste treatment plant, picking apples on a farm, or whatever the gov finds for them to do. If he doesn't show up for work no pay. If he turns 18 lives in a household that receives government benefit (is not a full time student) he has 6 months or so to find work, if not work will be found for him or he has to leave the residence. To qualify for food stamps same deal no work no food stamps. If one is in prison and is deemed low risk, he/she can work on work release same deal minimum wage.
I would add that if he has kids out of wedlock by different women his wages will be progressively garnished for the cost of the upkeep of said kids. Even if it is only a portion of the true cost borne by the state in taking care of his kids, he would have skin in the game so to speak whether he likes it or not.

After all I don't care if the person on welfare is using it to buy illegal pot or legal chardonnay wine, the point we shouldn't be forced to subsidize a able-bodied (I assume) person's indolence.

[GIThruster]

No, it's an argument against illegal drug use. Listen to the first few seconds when she is defending her lifestyle. Near the first thing out of her mouth is that she is an illegal drug user, and defends this, much as simon does. All her statements about her attitude are tied to that one, which is the same as simon's. "Why should I work, when I can sit home and smoke grass all day?" There's no mention of alcohol, but she is VERY specific why she does what she does. It's her addiction speaking. And make no mistake--simon is EXACTLY this way. Both of them justify themselves as good people because they don't hurt anyone, and then go on to hurt others by filling their pockets with the ill gotten gains of other people's money. Both know what they're doing is wrong but have a twisted defense of what they're doing anyway.

This is the way parasites think. Grass is the reason they think this way.

[williatw]

No, it's an argument against illegal drug use. Listen to the first few seconds when she is defending her lifestyle. Near the first thing out of her mouth is that she is an illegal drug user, and defends this, much as simon does. All her statements about her attitude are tied to that one, which is the same as simon's. "Why should I work, when I can sit home and smoke grass all day?" There's no mention of alcohol, but she is VERY specific why she does what she does. It's her addition speaking.

Drug prohibition does not disable her drug use, we have prohibition and she smokes pot like a chimney. Giving her free money to buy drugs (legal or otherwise) is how we enable her addiction. Stop subsidizing her idleness, make her (and others) get up off their ass and work for their money, locking up millions of mostly young minority males is clearly not stopping her access to drugs.

[GIThruster]

You're posing a false choice. In her case, locking her up is obviously not the solution, but neither is drug legalization. The solution is simple drug testing. She says she would work if she had to. If she were denied resources based on failing her drugs test, you have a solution without locking anyone up, and without making the drug problem worse than it already is.

But you're missing the point entirely because you forced the issue onto prohibition. The issue is that this is what drugs do to people. For as long as you refuse to see first principles, you can't even begin to adopt measures to deal with the real issue. The real issue is that THIS IS WHAT DRUGS DO TO PEOPLE.

[williatw]

You're posing a false choice. In her case, locking her up is obviously not the solution, but neither is drug legalization. The solution is simple drug testing. She says she would work if she had to. If she were denied resources based on failing her drugs test, you have a solution without locking anyone up, and without making the drug problem worse than it already is.

But you're missing the point entirely because you forced the issue onto prohibition. The issue is that this is what drugs do to people. For as long as you refuse to see first principles, you can't even begin to adopt measures to deal with the real issue. The real issue is that THIS IS WHAT DRUGS DO TO PEOPLE.

No the real issue is that your beloved prohibition is an abject failure. You are clearly more motivated by your intense animosity toward drug abusers, your desire to see them punished/brutalized whether it works or not. The fact of drug abuse/addiction is a medical problem not a law enforcement issue, should never have been. What false choice? I can't help it if prohibition is a miserable failure. My solution is stop giving able-bodied people a tax payer subsidized free ride while getting nothing in return. And yes I do think the war on drugs should be ended, because it is a failure which has damaged our society far worse than legalized and regulated would do. And I am sorry but “In her case, locking her up is obviously not the solution..." why the hell not? Thought you were a law and order conservative. Or is it that only scary looking young minority males should be locked up for possession/use of illegal narcotics?

[GIThruster]

No the real issue is that your beloved prohibition is an abject failure. You are clearly more motivated by your intense animosity toward drug abusers, your desire to see them punished/brutalized whether it works or not.

That's nonsense. I have many friends who still use and I worked for years with those who use. You're completely out of line making any reference to my personal feelings about the matter especially since you know nothing about me. Let me remind you, that I worked for years with homeless people. Does that sound like someone who hates drug users? I hate what drugs do to people's lives, but I can assure you there is nothing in me that wants to see anyone brutalized. Requiring drug testing before distributing welfare brutalizes no one.

You are clearly more motivated to pretend the war on drugs is a "miserable failure" than to face the facts. It is not a miserable failure. It is quite successful. The statistics on this have been posted by Dio many, many times, clearly demonstrating what life would be like without prohibition. You simply choose to ignore the facts and pretend people should have access to drugs, so we have more people like simon. I want fewer lives wasted, whereas you obviously could not care less who flushes their life down the toilet for the sake of getting high every day.

[Diogenes]

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/12/2 ... f-welfare/

I think that you are stepping over the line in making this so personal. I think you should tone down your thread title. It is completely inappropriate.

[GIThruster]

I think simon needs to stop posting one thread after the next on the same topic. Until he stops, I'm going to continue to embarrass him. He has been told by Joe to stop it and hasn't even slowed down.

I'm not the aggressor here. simon is.

[Betruger]

Does that sound like someone who hates drug users? I hate what drugs do to people's lives, but I can assure you there is nothing in me that wants to see anyone brutalized.

Except maybe MSimon?

For every homeless user, did you seek out and consider a non-homeless user (e.g. Wall Street player)? Ideally you would play Yama and weigh out all users of the world in omniscient census.

[TDPerk]

" He has been told by Joe to stop it"

I expect you are lying your ass off, GIThruster.

"I'm not the aggressor here."

What do you think any malum prohibitum nonsense is but aggression?

" You're completely out of line making any reference to my personal feelings about the matter especially since you know nothing about me. "

You've made it clear this IS about your personal feelings without regard for any evidence or morality, that your personal feelings ARE your issue and THE issue, and they are open for discussion and the derision they deserve.

" It is not a miserable failure. It is quite successful."

It is an abject failure, there is no particular drop in addiction rates or usage rates, and neither is there any sign the cartels are having any difficulty moving product, or in people "rolling their own".

" I hate what drugs do to people's lives, but I can assure you there is nothing in me that wants to see anyone brutalized. "

Then you are doing it wrong.

It's no surprise, you don't know what's right or wrong in the matter--you are an infant emotionally.

You've never grown up.

Hell, in the grotesque abominations of the government in persecuting your war on drugs, we quintessentially see someone wanting Daddy to magically make it all better.

You don't know your or the government's limitations, either in justice or practicality.

[Diogenes]

I think simon needs to stop posting one thread after the next on the same topic. Until he stops, I'm going to continue to embarrass him. He has been told by Joe to stop it and hasn't even slowed down.

I'm not the aggressor here. simon is.

I am aware of this, but I still think your thread title is going too far.


I would ask that you change it, if for no other reason than because I find it objectionable. Not that you owe me a favor, but I would appreciate it if you did change it.

I suspect others feel the same as well.

[GIThruster]

Done, though I confess I don't see the trouble here. simon has been posting daily for years that he is an illegal drug user and wants to see the drug decriminalized. When I call simon a "druggie" have I said something everyone here doesn't already know? Should I have said "pothead"? "Toker"? How does this make the issue more palatable?

The point is, we have here someone who owns her position: that she is content to sponge off society because she wants to sit at home and smoke pot each day. Her other listed pastime is "visiting with friends". My contention has always been, that one of the deleterious effects of cannabis is it destroys ambition. Here we have just such an example. This is the point.

[Teahive]

Maybe there should be a mandatory dose for politicians, then.

[Stubby]

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/watch-the-ins ... 1478892426