Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Here's a thought. If you get to force a welfare recipient to take a drug test based on the premise that your choice to take a job that requires one, gives you that right, then why don't you just keep it simple and choose not to pay your taxes, instead of forcing the consequences of your choices on other people ? That way only you get to fully appreciate the results of the choices that you make for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So what you're saying is that they should take a job instead? Because I'm for that.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that changing other peoples behavior to suit your ideals isn't going to make your life better. Misery loves company is just an expression, not a license to make other people miserable.
ReplyDeleteUsing illegal drugs is against the law, not just against someone's ideal. Using legal drugs wouldn't make a difference there.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea might be similar to driving. If you want to drive, you are expected to obey the laws (e.g. don't run stop signs, don't speed, don't drive under the influence). If you want to draw welfare, you're expected to abstain from illegal drugs. Well, you're expected to obey laws anyway (whether or not you partake in those other privileges), but taking away driving privileges or welfare is supposed to encourage people to actually do what they're expected.
There has been a federal law since 1996 that keeps people with felony drug convictions from drawing welfare. Why only drug felonies and not violent felonies? Idk, part of the crappy war on drugs. But states have had the option of modifying or opting-out of that law; some have, some haven't.
My post is about people who claim that welfare recipients should take drug tests since their own jobs require them. They claim the right by the fact that they are paying for the welfare.
ReplyDeleteMy objection is that in states where this is done, it costs many times more than it saves and I oppose the concept because I don't think it's right for them to make me pay for their entertainment. If someone wants to require testing then at least those of us who don't agree should not be forced to pay for it.
Would you say Dustin Riley that drug testing would be okay except for legal drug use ? I'm thinking of legal prescription or legal marijuana use. Should people on legitimate pain management or those who are terminally ill lose their benefits ?
Apologies if I'm coming across as argumentative or snarky or whatever. I can't deny that I am but aside from that I am also genuinely interested in just where people feel that the lines are for them.
Sorry, I hadn't heard the argument that people only want drug testing for welfare recipients because they had to take a drug test for their job. I thought the argument was more centered around not subsidizing someone's food and housing just so they could instead spend money on illegal drugs.
ReplyDeleteI agree that ineffective and costly programs should be reevaluated. But I don't see how a la carte government spending could work. You don't want your taxes spent on drug testing; she doesn't want tax dollars spent on defense; he doesn't want his spent on education; I don't want them spent on medical programs. It would be very messy and problematic. The only way we get to "choose" is by electing people to represent us; which can be frustrating and ineffectual.
I'd say that many of the things that have been done in the name of the drug war have been ineffective and costly. The idea of discouraging illegal drug use isn't bad, but the things that have been done to try to accomplish that have been disastrous. Extremely strict mandatory sentences, militarization of police, erosion of civil liberties, and costly spending on ineffective programs are just a few. And the general way of dealing with those failures has been to become even more entrenched and more harsh.
Do I agree with the general idea of expecting compliance with our laws in order to receive government money? Yes, on the surface I do. But it would have to be done in an effective and common sense way, and I don't think the government is capable of that. Why only test welfare recipients? Why not students that receive government aid too? Why only drug crimes? Why not violent crimes? None of those have good common sense answers, so why do it at all?
I don't think people on legal drugs should be penalized; I don't think I even implied that. But there is no legal marijuana use (on the federal level), so should they be eligible for federal moneys if they don't want to follow federal laws? Maybe the better way to fight that specific instance would be to legalize that drug at the federal level rather than do away with accountability all together in order to make that one drug acceptable.
That conversation kinda starts leading us toward the issue of state and local rights/laws versus federal. I think more localized oversight, laws, spending, etc is often the best for citizens. But unfortunately we've seen the erosion of local powers and the expansion of federal power. But that is another can of worms I don't wanna open right now.
Bravo Dustin Riley - That was a great reply not just because I agree but on it's own. Thanks bunches.
ReplyDeleteWell stated, Dustin Riley
ReplyDelete