Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 14:13:41 GMT -6
Florida, Kentucky and Missouri are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people are calling this unconstitutional. It's ok to test people who work for their money but not those who don't?
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Sept 21, 2014 14:50:57 GMT -6
I think drug testing is an invasion of privacy that has gotten out of control. Only those whose jobs require them doing things that might endanger themselves or others should be tested, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 11:43:21 GMT -6
If they are taking drugs, they are endangering themselves and others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 19:17:27 GMT -6
Yes, absolutely I agree with drug testing for people on state's assistance.Most have dependent children, and I think it's the state's responsibility to know money coming from the state is being spent on the things it should be spent on, food, clothes things a normal family needs, and not on drugs. If one or more parent is using illegal drugs, chances are they are spending the money that is supposed to go for other things on drugs instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 20:43:09 GMT -6
Yes, absolutely I agree with drug testing for people on state's assistance.Most have dependent children, and I think it's the state's responsibility to know money coming from the state is being spent on the things it should be spent on, food, clothes things a normal family needs, and not on drugs. If one or more parent is using illegal drugs, chances are they are spending the money that is supposed to go for other things on drugs instead. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Sept 23, 2014 18:51:50 GMT -6
If they are taking drugs, they are endangering themselves and others. In what way? It seems to me that the harm done to human lives by the War on Drugs has long since overwhelmed the actual damage done by drug usage. We have filled our prisons, and made a large number of people convicted felons, unemployable for the rest of their lives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 2:58:01 GMT -6
When someone is on drugs they can't be trusted. If they need a fix there is not much they wouldn't don to get it. It's a sad spiral that often leads to death, jail or imprisonment. It's the most sad existence imaginable.
I have worked with these people for years, they find themselves in a vicious cycle that few are able to escape.
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Sept 25, 2014 17:43:56 GMT -6
It would help if we didn't mark them as convicted felons for the rest of their lives, so they would find it nearly impossible to get decent paying jobs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 19:08:06 GMT -6
It would help if we didn't mark them as convicted felons for the rest of their lives, so they would find it nearly impossible to get decent paying jobs. So you are all for breaking the law with no consequences ? No personal liability ? All that would do is make society, the tax payer who is funding welfare, an enabler. Enabling is the worst thing anyone can do in response to drug use. No consequences = no incentive to amend one's ways.
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Sept 26, 2014 4:19:51 GMT -6
Isn't the original imprisonment punishment enough for you? By doing what we you recommend, we might as well execute them on the spot. Otherwise, we are creating a criminal class.
The law is bad law, and should be changed. The punishment far outweighs the crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 11:19:28 GMT -6
Isn't the original imprisonment punishment enough for you? By doing what we you recommend, we might as well execute them on the spot. Otherwise, we are creating a criminal class. The law is bad law, and should be changed. The punishment far outweighs the crime. Depends on what sort of drug abuse we are talking about. For a minimum pot charge, I may be inclined to agree with you. But for crack, heroin, any major trafficing, then no. A person goes into the business knowing full well the consequences. They get rich at the expense of the addict, which in turn destroys the family unit and puts society ,at large, in jeopardy. If the addict can't find the money to make the purchase, then what do you suppose happens ? That's the point where it is an endangerment to society at large. Most addicts will ,at some point, turn to prostitution or robbery if they can't find the money by some other means. Wonder how many kids go to bed hungry at night because Mom or Dad are spending grocery money on drugs ? I can't see how you seek to give a drug charge a pass on a life time of criminal history. You can't start dividing law breakers into categories, especially felonies. They know going in what the consequences are. That's the chance you take.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 12:41:54 GMT -6
Isn't the original imprisonment punishment enough for you? By doing what we you recommend, we might as well execute them on the spot. Otherwise, we are creating a criminal class. The law is bad law, and should be changed. The punishment far outweighs the crime. Your party had plenty of opportunities to do that when they had total control of Congress. Why haven't the Dem legislatures in places like Calif., Ill., and NY changed their laws? Are you in a very small minority?
|
|
|
Post by samsara15 on Sept 26, 2014 16:42:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by matador on Oct 8, 2014 18:49:10 GMT -6
Isn't the original imprisonment punishment enough for you? By doing what we you recommend, we might as well execute them on the spot. Otherwise, we are creating a criminal class. The law is bad law, and should be changed. The punishment far outweighs the crime. Your party had plenty of opportunities to do that when they had total control of Congress. Why haven't the Dem legislatures in places like Calif., Ill., and NY changed their laws? Are you in a very small minority? The law has been changed in many states, a small quantity for personal use is maybe a ticket and that is all, in some states it doesn't even come to that. Now if it is a large quantity it is reasonable to consider that transporting with an attempt to sale and that is a crime. The problem in requiring a drug test is and should be illegal unless there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime. What if a person is on doctor's orders for medical marijuana? They would always test positive and do you think that they should not receive due benefits?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 19:33:05 GMT -6
Your party had plenty of opportunities to do that when they had total control of Congress. Why haven't the Dem legislatures in places like Calif., Ill., and NY changed their laws? Are you in a very small minority? The law has been changed in many states, a small quantity for personal use is maybe a ticket and that is all, in some states it doesn't even come to that. Now if it is a large quantity it is reasonable to consider that transporting with an attempt to sale and that is a crime. The problem in requiring a drug test is and should be illegal unless there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime. What if a person is on doctor's orders for medical marijuana? They would always test positive and do you think that they should not receive due benefits? No of course not. Marijuana by prescription is an altogether different matter. There are days when I wish I had a script for my glaucoma and RA..
|
|