that's the basic gist of it. people are saying this is unconstitutional and a violation of privacy. The governor said that it was not the tax payer's position to foot the bill for other people's addictions. ...if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide and people will only know that you're not on drugs. ...but some say that forcing that is still wrong. wat say you?
Here's the thing, the government is using MY money to pay for other people's welfare. I can completely understand why one would want to make sure those receiving welfare aren't doing drugs.
I can see crime rates going up because of this.
I don't think we should pay welfare to drug users simply because they might resort to violence otherwise.
Honestly, I can't make up my mind whether I support the decision or not. If the government is giving you money, then they should be allowed to tell you how to spend that money. The same would be true if your rich uncle was sending you a check. If your uncle started to pay you so much money a month, you would have to follow his rules upon receiving it.
I'm all for freedom, but when you're taking handouts, then you have to abide by the rules of the person who's handouts you are taking, including the government. This is true unless the government forces you to take a handout, in which case, I feel the government would be in the wrong.
I think improving the police competency would be better then improving their budget. Extra money would be better spent on education.
Also, money doesn't help children learn, competent teachers do. We need to allow schools the freedom to fire whichever teachers they feel aren't doing their job and grant raises to teachers who they feel are doing a good job. Another thing that will help education is if we privatize schools. Since privatizing schools is a bit of a scary leap, we should at least allow charter schools to exist. Not only that, but we should also grant so much money to each student and allow the money to follow the student to whichever school they go to instead of giving it directly to the schools. This would also require us to allow children to choose which public school they want to go to a.k.a school choice. This would greatly decrease the cost of sending children to school because schools would only be able to profit by making the children happy and to prove to parents that their children are learning more than they would at any other school. The worse teachers would also get fired, which means teachers would have to adapt to teaching strategies that work instead of sucking the teacher union's teet.
I don't think we should pay welfare to drug users simply because they might resort to violence otherwise.
I didn't mean doing because they would turn to violence, I was just pointing out a rather clear out come of such a decision. If they really want to control how the money is spent then simply put the money on a sort of credit card like they do with food stamps.
Also, money doesn't help children learn, competent teachers do.
You can have a good teacher all you like. But they aren't going to be able to do that good job when the kids have outdated text books, that they have to share and materials in which to do the work on is coming out of the pocket of the already severely under payed teacher.
We need to allow schools the freedom to fire whichever teachers they feel aren't doing their job and grant raises to teachers who they feel are doing a good job.
Both of which would require money to the education system.
This would also require us to allow children to choose which public school they want to go to a.k.a school choice.
While there are designated areas for specific schools the parents do have the ability to request a certain school for there kids to go to.
I understand the morals behind it but i agree with a lot that has been posted, there could be such an increase in crime rates as people with hardcore addicitions go to new measures to get their fix.
there could be such an increase in crime rates as people with hardcore addicitions go to new measures to get their fix.
Boo hoo. Just because they might commit crimes doesn't mean we should pay them. That's just bribing them, and most of the time they commit crimes anyways.
This is a phenomenal first step, in my opinion. If we must have a welfare system at all, it MUST be given to the truly needy. A good number (I don't know exacts. It could be a minority, but it could also be a majority.) of recipients of federal and state welfare do not have jobs, will not look for jobs, and in some instances have never worked a day in their lives. We're paying people to be lazy.
Not to mention the illegal, non-tax paying immigrants who sneak onto the bill.
Many of these people also manage to do drugs. Go figure. If they're being tested for drugs, they can't receive their free money. That, in my opinion, is the way it should be. It's bad enough the government is stealing my money (well not yet, technically, as I'm too young to have proper employment, but it will apply at some point), but to give it to people who do not contribute, and more importantly, will not contribute, to my world or to improve it in some way.
So what if they turn to crime? Last I checked, even if I don't necessarily support it, drugs are already a crime. Therefore, they are criminals and are not eligible for support in the first place.
This is a phenomenal first step, in my opinion. If we must have a welfare system at all, it MUST be given to the truly needy. A good number (I don't know exacts. It could be a minority, but it could also be a majority.) of recipients of federal and state welfare do not have jobs, will not look for jobs, and in some instances have never worked a day in their lives. We're paying people to be lazy.
What of those who have spent countless hours looking but not finding a job that they eventually turn to drugs to escape that crappy reality they exist in?
Not to mention the illegal, non-tax paying immigrants who sneak onto the bill.
Than maybe we should focus on the people being legal citizens instead of on whether they take drugs or not.
I'm not saying doing drugs is a good things and as NoName pointed out there is justification for the government to be able to say "you can have this money because of this". But it all comes off as seeming like an attempt to legislate morality.
technically speaking... if you make any law whatsoever then you are legislating morality. You are telling people what they can and cannot do. My AP world civ teacher in high school told me about a 3rd worldish island people (maybe it was the maori... or maybe it was some other country... either way I've forgotten the name of them) whose customs required 2 men upon meeting on a jungle path to cite as far back as possible their lineage. If their lineages never crossed as far as they remembered then the two men (of different tribes I think) were required to kill each other. If this is true, then obviously their view of morality would be different than ours. If their area came under any modernized country's rule (take the US for example) and that country were to try and "modernize" them w/ rules and laws that prohibited such fights to the death then we would be legislating morality in our attempt to de-heathenize them. ...and if that is their way then what right do we have to force the idea of any human killing is wrong?
and technically they're not telling them they can't do drugs (other than the laws already in place).... they're saying that they're going to optimize the usage of a very limited resource (the tax payer's dollar) by only distributing it to people who are actually using it to better themselves. They don't want the limited resources that are being distributed squandered when there are those out there that won't squander it that are probably getting less or none at all b/c of the allotment being given to the squanderer.
I can't imagine illicit drugs being all that cheap. if you can afford all that jazz w/ gov't money then I think you could do alright for yourself without the drugs constantly siphoning off your money. ...alright being a little above just surviving and dumpster diving. for those that want to quit there should be programs there to aid them. for those that don't that's their prerogative.
if they can't get a job then there might just be something wrong w/ the picture... as in either its discrimination against their demographic or they have a problem... or they're just inept. or they don't take care of themselves and their appearence so they scare the bejeeezus out of everyone they apply to.
I have a cousin who lives behind wal mart in a tent that I think he stole with ~5-9 cats. most of the story of his fall has to do with drugs... and he doesn't care to stop.. yet he feels that everyone else should give him hand outs. even he can get jobs from time to time w/ construction'esque manual labor type stuff. It was somewhat odd to drive through the local chinese buffet's parking lot and see him jumping out of the dumpster and drive off w/ a bag of stuff to eat a few months ago... his story isn't one of "oh no1 will help him :'''("... its he blew all his money on drugs and lost everything ...and takes what's given to him and blows it away too. I'm sorry that I have a bias on this issue. my experience has told me that most of the time it is the individual's fault for either doing the wrong thing or not taking the chances to better themselves when they shoulda woulda coulda but didn't. I do admit that there are people who would fall through the cracks that should've been helped. ...but being related to the man I wouldn't even give him money (mostly b/c he'd probably stab me and take everything I had... but that's irrelevant). there are people who shouldn't be given hand outs... and there are those who should(not my cousin).
Well, this is off topic, but here's something on schools here.
I'm not saying doing drugs is a good things and as NoName pointed out there is justification for the government to be able to say "you can have this money because of this". But it all comes off as seeming like an attempt to legislate morality.
I'm against legislating morality, but I feel those who take handouts from anyone should never be in the position to make the calls on how to spend the money they are receiving. This only applies to handouts that are optional. When it comes to handouts that aren't optional, such as national health care, well, that's a whole different story.
What of those who have spent countless hours looking but not finding a job that they eventually turn to drugs to escape that crappy reality they exist in?
It is their choice to sink to that level. Everyone has a choice to do, or not to do, drugs. That does not make them any more or less exempt.
There are, of course, necessary safety nets for people. However, to qualify for these, those people have to live with the reality life is going to be hard and their quality of life is going to drop. If they keep up the job searching and think outside the box, they'll eventually get there. It's all a matter of time.
Doing drugs just makes it worse for them in the long run.
-----------------
Here's a little off topic note, but why on Earth are we giving these people money in the first place? People cannot be trusted with their own livelihoods by this point, and many welfare recipients blow their money on things they do not need.
Why don't we just focus the money, which is in the several hundred billions, to giving them necessities? Clearly, if they are so poorly off, they can do without luxuries. Why don't we give them food, shelter, transit, and so forth? Cut out the middle man, and then we are 100% sure they get what they need.
Well, this is off topic, but here's something on schools here.
The issue presented there still sounds like one of money with an addition to poor management inappropriately allocating the funds they do get.
Doing drugs just makes it worse for them in the long run.
Yes, though living on the poor end scale can wear a persons constitution down. In states of depression a person is likely to turn to quick fixes and the solution being presented is to simply punish them more.
Why don't we just focus the money, which is in the several hundred billions, to giving them necessities? Clearly, if they are so poorly off, they can do without luxuries. Why don't we give them food, shelter, transit, and so forth? Cut out the middle man, and then we are 100% sure they get what they need.
Like I said we could give them something like a credit card which could only be used in purchasing necessities if that's such a big issue. However it is likely there will be necessities that won't be covered by such a system that could be handled without restiction.
People have always taken drugs and always will. Deciding who gets money should not be decided by whether someone takes drugs or not. Controlling how they spend their money would be a far better option. I have no idea how that would be enforced tho!
I think the best option is to legalise and control these substances. They stay underground and are untraceable otherwise.
