Anybody who abuses unemployment benefits should not be receiving it, that goes for nonaddicts as well.
The reason why I didn't bring up alcoholics is because that's not what the article is about. The deregulation that Trump made is specifically made for "drug testing". Alcohol isn't considered a drug. I'm keeping it in the context of what is actually being changed.
Stoners and crack addicts aren't the only ones who exploit unemployment benefits, but that's what the drug screening law is trying to solve.
There are already laws that prevent other groups from taking advantage of unemployment benefits.
Marijuana is only safe for medical use.
Getting addicted to anything, including cigarettes, alcohol, and prescription drugs, is never a good thing. Addiction even has a negative connotation to the word. And stoners aren't people who use weed responsibly. They enjoy getting high and become addicted to the drug.
I understand that Philip Hoffman was going through some issues, which is why he should have received other forms of help. Resorting to drugs will only lead to death. That's my point. Drugs only take away the pain temporarily, but don't solve your issues.
If somebody stopped Philip from taking drugs, he wouldn't have died.
I'm in full support of giving addicts help, but it's not by giving them unemployment benefits and ignoring the actual problem.
Technically, it's not a stereotype. Drugs impair people's ability to work. By giving them unemployment benefits, there's no guarantee that they will be job ready once an opportunity arises.
But why shouldn't it extend to alcohol? I'm sure more alcoholics abuse the system than drug addicts. According to Think Progress, at least one state tried drug testing before claimants could receive unemployment benefits, and all it did was drain the budget, especially when only a handful got a positive result over hundreds who were tested.
when I get home, I'll look it up, but I'm sure other groups have been taking advantage of the benefits as well, and I assume majority who do are non-addicts or non-drug addicts.
Do you know anyone who smokes weed? People who are stoners? What is using weed responsibly? Might as well say people need to smoke cigarettes and cigars responsibly as well. Hell, for all you know, some of the hardest working people you know are stoners. And of course people who smoke marijuana enjoy getting high, it's a safe drug that usually has positive effects, whether used "responsibly" or not. And addiction has a negative connotation because of people who want to demonize addicts and instead of trying to help them, would rather cast them aside or isolate them. Addiction shouldn't have a positive connotation (unless it's caffeine, apparently), but it shouldn't be considered negative either.
What issues was he going through, do you know? And again, people seek help or ways to feel better differently. Where other wrestlers of the 90s resorted to drugs and/or alcohol, Bret Hart had sex even though he was married. Where some people cope by crying, others cope by seeing a psychiatrist or talking to someone they trust. You're just not trying to understand. I mean, I mostly agree with what you're saying, but I'm also looking at it from another point of view, and many others are okay with drugs taking away the pain temporarily. Hell, temporary relief is why they take more and eventually overdose.
That is somewhat true. However, unless Philip was handcuffed, tied up, or monitored 24/7, nothing but Philip himself would have stopped him from getting more drugs. You can try to help addicts all you want, but it'll be futile if the addicts choose not to take the help or want to do anything.
Giving them unemployment benefits does help. The problem is what they'll spend the money on.
It is a stereotype. You're demonizing those who do drugs and make them all out to be people who can't work or be able to work well. There are many people who do drugs and still do their jobs well, even better than the non-addicts. While it may impair people's ability to work, to what extent you can't really tell.
So I take it that you ignoring me asking for your sources means you don't have good sources that fit my criteria? I'd actually be shocked if you did, given my experience with Trump supporters. I'm the first to admit I have no respect for at least 99% of them though, due to stereotyping from my experience with nearly all of the Trump supporters I've seen or talked to.
But why shouldn't it extend to alcohol? I'm sure more alcoholics abuse the system than drug addicts. According to Think Progress, at least one state tried drug testing before claimants could receive unemployment benefits, and all it did was drain the budget, especially when only a handful got a positive result over hundreds who were tested.
when I get home, I'll look it up, but I'm sure other groups have been taking advantage of the benefits as well, and I assume majority who do are non-addicts or non-drug addicts.
Do you know anyone who smokes weed? People who are stoners? What is using weed responsibly? Might as well say people need to smoke cigarettes and cigars responsibly as well. Hell, for all you know, some of the hardest working people you know are stoners. And of course people who smoke marijuana enjoy getting high, it's a safe drug that usually has positive effects, whether used "responsibly" or not. And addiction has a negative connotation because of people who want to demonize addicts and instead of trying to help them, would rather cast them aside or isolate them. Addiction shouldn't have a positive connotation (unless it's caffeine, apparently), but it shouldn't be considered negative either.
What issues was he going through, do you know? And again, people seek help or ways to feel better differently. Where other wrestlers of the 90s resorted to drugs and/or alcohol, Bret Hart had sex even though he was married. Where some people cope by crying, others cope by seeing a psychiatrist or talking to someone they trust. You're just not trying to understand. I mean, I mostly agree with what you're saying, but I'm also looking at it from another point of view, and many others are okay with drugs taking away the pain temporarily. Hell, temporary relief is why they take more and eventually overdose.
That is somewhat true. However, unless Philip was handcuffed, tied up, or monitored 24/7, nothing but Philip himself would have stopped him from getting more drugs. You can try to help addicts all you want, but it'll be futile if the addicts choose not to take the help or want to do anything.
I'm not saying it shouldn't extend to alcohol. I'm saying that the law that Trump specifically deregulated only counts drugs, and not alcohol or cigarettes.
Besides, alcohol is perfectly legal for many U.S. citizens. On the contrary, very few states have legalized marijuana for recreational use.
But regardless, alcohol isn't considered a drug. There are many other groups that take advantage of unemployment benefits, but the drug screening law only applies to drug users.
As for smokers, I never gave them a pass...
Marijuana has a medical purpose. Cigar and cigarettes don't. If anything, weed is more beneficial. The key point that I'm trying to make here is that, once you get addicted, it isn't a good thing anymore. That goes for both smokers and drug users.
I'm perfectly alright if people want to use marijuana or smoke cigars and cigarettes responsibly, again, it's their life and not mine.
Supporting "drugs as temporary relief" is basically giving drug addicts "false hope".
There are other ways to help their emotional and mental issues, and I fully support money being allocated to programs and treatments that actually help them.
Nobody is going to tie down Philip, especially not me, since I'm socially liberal.
But if you really want to help him, getting him off drugs is the right way to go. Letting him overdose is the lazy way of helping him cope with his problems. By doing that, you're just leading him down the wrong path.
It is a stereotype. You're demonizing those who do drugs and make them all out to be people who can't work or be able to work well. There are many people who do drugs and still do their jobs well, even better than the non-addicts. While it may impair people's ability to work, to what extent you can't really tell.
So I take it that you ignoring me asking for your sources means you don't have good sources that fit my criteria? I'd actually be shocked if you did, given my experience with Trump supporters. I'm the first to admit I have no respect for at least 99% of them though, due to stereotyping from my experience with nearly all of the Trump supporters I've seen or talked to.
I'm not stereotyping. Being a crack addict or a stoner is nothing to be proud of. 99% of society would agree with that statement.
Addiction also has one of the most negative connotations to it. That's a general consensus in society.
Drugs will impair people's ability to think, work, and do their job correctly.
Are you going to let them use drugs in private, and hope that the extent is really small?
By definition, "addicts" (aka they can't control their behaviors) will use excessive amounts of drugs, which will hinder their ability to function properly.
As for the sources, like I said, most of them can be found easily by searching them up on the internet. There are many sources that show Asian, European, & Middle Eastern world leaders respecting Trump.
Idk what you would consider as a "credible" source, so you're going to have to look them up and judge for yourself.
There are many articles on those matters, I just can't point to the specific one that you would prefer.
I'm not saying it shouldn't extend to alcohol. I'm saying that the law that Trump specifically deregulated only counts drugs, and not alcohol or cigarettes.
Besides, alcohol is perfectly legal for many U.S. citizens. On the contrary, very few states have legalized marijuana for recreational use.
But regardless, alcohol isn't considered a drug. There are many other groups that take advantage of unemployment benefits, but the drug screening law only applies to drug users.
As for smokers, I never gave them a pass...
Marijuana has a medical purpose. Cigar and cigarettes don't. If anything, weed is more beneficial. The key point that I'm trying to make here is that, once you get addicted, it isn't a good thing anymore. That goes for both smokers and drug users.
I'm perfectly alright if people want to use marijuana or smoke cigars and cigarettes responsibly, again, it's their life and not mine.
But why isn't Trump going after alcohol as well? It's way worse than the other drugs as it's actually legal and easily obtainable.
And few states likely have done that because of how big pharmaceutical companies are, and their fear of losing revenue if weed is legalized. Weed being illegal in most states doesn't make it bad, and it doesn't mean stoners are irresponsible or bad. There are tons of employees who smoke weed and still put in good work, besides which weed shouldn't be illegal anyway.
it depends. I'd much rather get addicted to weed than to alcohol, meth, cocaine, cigarettes, or anything else.
Have you ever smoked weed? Been addicted to drugs? Know anyone who smokes, smoked, is addicted, or was addicted? I know few people who are addicted to drugs, and many of them use it as a temporary relief from life's pains while others use it in a recreational manner. I know many who did drugs, hit rock bottom, and gave it up because they wanted to, not because they were forced to.
I personally cannot be 100% confident in my arguments because I only know from secondhand and thirdhand experience and a bit of research.
Supporting "drugs as temporary relief" is basically giving drug addicts "false hope".
There are other ways to help their emotional and mental issues, and I fully support money being allocated to programs and treatments that actually help them.
Nobody is going to tie down Philip, especially not me, since I'm socially liberal.
But if you really want to help him, getting him off drugs is the right way to go. Letting him overdose is the lazy way of helping him cope with his problems. By doing that, you're just leading him down the wrong path.
I don't support drugs as temporary relief, but I'm giving you one reason out of many why addicts do drugs. They don't do it out of any kind of hope, they do it because they'd rather have temporary relief. I can't tell you what their thought pattern might be as I don't have experience, but I have read some articles on this and have known friends and acquaintances. It's similar, if not the same, to why people drink, especially when they're upset.
So do I. But I'm also not going to demonize them or judge them or act as if I know what's going on and how to solve the issues they face. While there are other ways, a lot of these addicts chose the easy way. You're not going to help them by forcing them. Even if you cut off their unemployment benefits, they'll still find a way to get drugs, although I honestly don't support giving them benefits without making sure they won't use that money for drugs.
how would you get him off drugs? What would you do? The way you say this, it indicates you know so little about addicts. Few former addicts I know say that it's nearly impossible to stop addiction unless the addicts themselves are committed to it. Philip was able to go clean for years because he wanted to be clean and because he worked hard to be clean. Then something happened, and he fell off the wagon. Forcing him wouldn't have stopped him, it would have made him sneakier. Literally, the only way to stop an addict from getting more is by chaining them or locking them up. Jake "The Snake" Roberts is a success story, and even he apparently falls off the wagon every now and then when he's extremely stressed.
It's better to monitor an addict than it is to force him to give up when it'll just make him look for ways to get his fix without getting caught. would you rather your friend do drugs in his room by himself where no one can see him, or would you rather he do it in front of you, where if something happens you can call the hospital? Or you can stop him from taking more? Forcing anyone to do anything just pushes them down the wrong path.
If unemployment benefit applicants have money to buy drugs, then why aren't they using it to buy food, clothing, and utilities?
Weed isn't that cheap. The money that "drug addicts" are using to buy weed can buy them a lot of food and other useful items.
If you want to help them, it isn't by giving them money. They already have that, if they are using weed.
The solution is to design programs and institutions that actually help their physical and mental health.
Exactly why I to a degree agree with the screening. Problem is, it's not foolproof either.
Or they can find other ways to get weed, like exchanging favors. Just because they have drugs doesn't necessarily mean they have money, especially if they go around begging for money. This sounds more conservative than liberal, not trying to understand the other side.
Yes, like rehab centers. Again, if the addicts aren't determined to change, then they'll fall off the wagon or fall off often. First step would be to understand why they started taking the drug in the first place. From there, you can figure out how to best help them.
I'm not stereotyping. Being a crack addict or a stoner is nothing to be proud of. 99% of society would agree with that statement.
Addiction also has one of the most negative connotations to it. That's a general consensus in society.
Drugs will impair people's ability to think, work, and do their job correctly.
Are you going to let them use drugs in private, and hope that the extent is really small?
By definition, "addicts" (aka they can't control their behaviors) will use excessive amounts of drugs, which will hinder their ability to function properly.
As for the sources, like I said, most of them can be found easily by searching them up on the internet. There are many sources that show Asian, European, & Middle Eastern world leaders respecting Trump.
Idk what you would consider as a "credible" source, so you're going to have to look them up and judge for yourself.
There are many articles on those matters, I just can't point to the specific one that you would prefer.
You do seem to stereotype addicts and stoners. You make stoners look like they're bad, when for all you know the person you respect immensely is a stoner, or a beloved friend is an addict of some kind.
Clearly. I'm saying it shouldn't have a negative connotation or at least, no negative action or reaction due to negative connotation. It's not good for the addicts, especially when people will go out of their way to shun them instead of trying to help them.
Depends, really. There are few alcoholics and even stoners who have done their best work while high or inebriated, but in the case of those alcoholics, they were too far gone.
That is a stereotype. There are many addicts who can control their behavior but can't stay away from the drug for a long time, and many addicts who don' t go the excessive.
What are those sources? I don't want to Google it, I want to see your sources. Don't dodge or deflect, show me your sources.
For the most part, I don't consider 90% of right wing sources as credible, especially pro-Trump ones. I've read through most of them, and they lie or don't tell the truth. A right winger took an out-of-context video and claimed it was Muslims in Sweden or Norway rioting, but when I fact checked it, the video actually had to do with the younger generation (millennial, I believe?) rioting about something else. So no, I want your sources because if you use bad sources, then that shows me there's no point in debating with you at all about anything Trump related or politics related. So, your sources. Don't Google and link me to a random source or a liberal source, I want YOUR source.
Don't get me wrong, I support helping out the unfortunate. I don't mind giving them "free handouts" as long as they are willing to work and have the intention to support themselves.
There’s an interesting school of thought in GB that what drives people to lack any motivation to go out and work is that the cost of living is so high that it’s near impossible to start improving your life until you’re earning ~£30K. You’ll almost certainly be stuck in rented accommodation until you hit that wage level, so a big chunk of your income will be going on rent, and unlike with a mortgage you’ll never get any of that money back or see any benefit for it. Similarly, up until that wage level your disposable income will be non-existent to minimal, meaning having to save up for several months or use credit for literally any luxuries like holidays. As the average wage for people is about £28k most people now don’t get into the comfortable pay zone until quite late in their lives which is a big change from even 10-15 years ago. Imagine having to work your entire life to cover the basics like food and accommodation, and really having to stretch to have any enjoyment. That’s what needs fixing, here at least.
The government’s reaction to this has been to provide a new tapering system of income support to replace the various previous benefits you could get for housing, unemployment etc etc to make sure that working more/ harder will always mean you’re better off - that’s the theory anyway. It will be interesting to see if this works considering more low-end jobs are becoming ‘zero hours’ casual employment as companies increasingly view workers as liabilities more than assets, and ever more reluctant to invest in training them to develop skills they want and need. There’s certainly a big mess here and it’s fuelling people like Jeremy Corbyn amongst post industrial communities, if we’re not careful they’ll be in power and god knows how we’re going to fund another £800 billion of borrowing, whether it’s borrowing to invest or not
But why isn't Trump going after alcohol as well? It's way worse than the other drugs as it's actually legal and easily obtainable.
And few states likely have done that because of how big pharmaceutical companies are, and their fear of losing revenue if weed is legalized. Weed being illegal in most states doesn't make it bad, and it doesn't mean stoners are irresponsible or bad. There are tons of employees who smoke weed and still put in good work, besides which weed shouldn't be illegal anyway.
it depends. I'd much rather get addicted to weed than to alcohol, meth, cocaine, cigarettes, or anything else.
Have you ever smoked weed? Been addicted to drugs? Know anyone who smokes, smoked, is addicted, or was addicted? I know few people who are addicted to drugs, and many of them use it as a temporary relief from life's pains while others use it in a recreational manner. I know many who did drugs, hit rock bottom, and gave it up because they wanted to, not because they were forced to.
I personally cannot be 100% confident in my arguments because I only know from secondhand and thirdhand experience and a bit of research.
Well, I'm not Trump, but alcohol isn't going to shorten your lifespan if done in moderation. Countries around the world socially accept alcohol as a part of life, because there are actual health benefits for those who drink responsibly.
And of course, in the U.S., the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, which is the prohibition of alcohol.
Marijuana, on the other hand, is known to have damaging effects, both on the the brain and in reproduction. Not only does it disrupt growth and human development, but it can impair different body functions even if a person uses it from time to time.
It's not known to have any significant health benefits, other than temporary relief for occasional medical purposes.
And no, I've never smoked weed or been addicted to any drugs. Like you, most of my perspective is based off of scientific research and experiences from society.
Although, from the law enforcement point of view, I can completely understand why alcohol is more acceptable than drugs like marijuana.
Both alcohol and marijuana will hinder a person's ability to drive. However, the liver only takes about 1 hour or sometimes several hours to metabolize alcohol. Which means the police can easily detect whether somebody has been driving while recently intoxicated.
Weed stays in the system for several days. That means if a person legally smoked weed the night before at home, and drove to work the next day, they could still have high levels of marijuana in their blood stream. And that makes the court case a lot more difficult to differentiate.
Alcohol tends to dissipate over night, so chances are, if somebody is drunk driving, they likely drank too much at the restaurant a few hours ago.
I don't support drugs as temporary relief, but I'm giving you one reason out of many why addicts do drugs. They don't do it out of any kind of hope, they do it because they'd rather have temporary relief. I can't tell you what their thought pattern might be as I don't have experience, but I have read some articles on this and have known friends and acquaintances. It's similar, if not the same, to why people drink, especially when they're upset.
So do I. But I'm also not going to demonize them or judge them or act as if I know what's going on and how to solve the issues they face. While there are other ways, a lot of these addicts chose the easy way. You're not going to help them by forcing them. Even if you cut off their unemployment benefits, they'll still find a way to get drugs, although I honestly don't support giving them benefits without making sure they won't use that money for drugs.
how would you get him off drugs? What would you do? The way you say this, it indicates you know so little about addicts. Few former addicts I know say that it's nearly impossible to stop addiction unless the addicts themselves are committed to it. Philip was able to go clean for years because he wanted to be clean and because he worked hard to be clean. Then something happened, and he fell off the wagon. Forcing him wouldn't have stopped him, it would have made him sneakier. Literally, the only way to stop an addict from getting more is by chaining them or locking them up. Jake "The Snake" Roberts is a success story, and even he apparently falls off the wagon every now and then when he's extremely stressed.
It's better to monitor an addict than it is to force him to give up when it'll just make him look for ways to get his fix without getting caught. would you rather your friend do drugs in his room by himself where no one can see him, or would you rather he do it in front of you, where if something happens you can call the hospital? Or you can stop him from taking more? Forcing anyone to do anything just pushes them down the wrong path.
Fair enough, I understand that some people need drugs to cope with their problems.
But in my opinion, the risks outweighs the benefits. Stoners and crack addicts exist in society, so the drug screening laws are there to prevent them from abusing unemployment benefits, which some people actually need to support their families.
There are therapies to help people who are addicted to drugs. But even those programs aren't sufficient. Psychologists can talk to drug users and try to convince them to drop it, but it will ultimately be up to the users themselves.
I don't have a solution, but I do support helping out the drug addicts. I just see no benefit in allowing addicts to keep using drugs as temporary relief.
They are taking drugs because they have an emotional stress. The key is to solve whatever social issue or problem that they are going through. Not the drug itself.
Exactly why I to a degree agree with the screening. Problem is, it's not foolproof either.
Or they can find other ways to get weed, like exchanging favors. Just because they have drugs doesn't necessarily mean they have money, especially if they go around begging for money. This sounds more conservative than liberal, not trying to understand the other side.
Yes, like rehab centers. Again, if the addicts aren't determined to change, then they'll fall off the wagon or fall off often. First step would be to understand why they started taking the drug in the first place. From there, you can figure out how to best help them.
I agree, the drug screening laws are definitely not foolproof. But it's the best solution that the government has at the moment.
If a person needs marijuana for medical purposes, then states should require them to show some sort of identification or prescription from a licensed physician.
And I agree with your third point. In order to stop them from taking drugs, their personal problems need to be resolved first. Stuff like rehab centers or psychologists are good sources for that kind of assistance.
What are those sources? I don't want to Google it, I want to see your sources. Don't dodge or deflect, show me your sources.
For the most part, I don't consider 90% of right wing sources as credible, especially pro-Trump ones. I've read through most of them, and they lie or don't tell the truth. A right winger took an out-of-context video and claimed it was Muslims in Sweden or Norway rioting, but when I fact checked it, the video actually had to do with the younger generation (millennial, I believe?) rioting about something else. So no, I want your sources because if you use bad sources, then that shows me there's no point in debating with you at all about anything Trump related or politics related. So, your sources. Don't Google and link me to a random source or a liberal source, I want YOUR source.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by my sources... I'm not some White House official or aide, so wherever I get my information from will likely be from various news articles and videos, like you and everybody else.
I read all types of news articles, not just conservative or liberal media. It'd be impossible for me to remember all the reports I've read in the past about foreign leaders respecting Trump.
But since you want me to provide something, I'll give you a few links that are not outright conservative or liberal (although I don't understand why you're putting so much emphasis on either one of them):
And obviously, I don't need to show you anything about Xi Jinping, Shinzo Abe, Vladimir Putin, and Moon Jae-in if you've been watching the news. Those are obvious people who welcome Trump's visits. The efforts that they put into their preparations and speeches are representative of that fact.
These are some sources that I figured you would classify as "neutral". Again, I don't know which ones you consider to be biased (which is why I didn't post them in the first place), but these seem pretty fair because most of them contain actual quotes by the world leaders themselves.
And most of these can be easily found online by searching them up. There are many other articles like the ones that I've posted above.
Conservative and liberal media outlets aren't the only sources of news out there, you know. I hardly pay any attention to them.
If you really want the facts, then videos, televised speeches, and international meetings are a great way to get the information. They provide actual quotes and direct statements by the world leaders themselves, which are more credible than news media interpretations.
I only listen to what the world leaders themselves have to say, not the drama that comes from the news media outlets.
Though, if I were to be honest, I've never received sources from anybody which states something along the lines of "No world leaders respect Trump."
There’s an interesting school of thought in GB that what drives people to lack any motivation to go out and work is that the cost of living is so high that it’s near impossible to start improving your life until you’re earning ~£30K. You’ll almost certainly be stuck in rented accommodation until you hit that wage level, so a big chunk of your income will be going on rent, and unlike with a mortgage you’ll never get any of that money back or see any benefit for it. Similarly, up until that wage level your disposable income will be non-existent to minimal, meaning having to save up for several months or use credit for literally any luxuries like holidays. As the average wage for people is about £28k most people now don’t get into the comfortable pay zone until quite late in their lives which is a big change from even 10-15 years ago. Imagine having to work your entire life to cover the basics like food and accommodation, and really having to stretch to have any enjoyment. That’s what needs fixing, here at least.
The government’s reaction to this has been to provide a new tapering system of income support to replace the various previous benefits you could get for housing, unemployment etc etc to make sure that working more/ harder will always mean you’re better off - that’s the theory anyway. It will be interesting to see if this works considering more low-end jobs are becoming ‘zero hours’ casual employment as companies increasingly view workers as liabilities more than assets, and ever more reluctant to invest in training them to develop skills they want and need. There’s certainly a big mess here and it’s fuelling people like Jeremy Corbyn amongst post industrial communities, if we’re not careful they’ll be in power and god knows how we’re going to fund another £800 billion of borrowing, whether it’s borrowing to invest or not
I agree, the problem is the way that society functions and the nature of the economy.
Those need to be fixed first before anything else. In fact, I bet that's probably the main cause of stress, depression, and other anxiety issues. People believe more on competition than cooperation, and not everybody is created to be ranked at the top of society.
And honestly, it doesn't seem like that problem will be resolved any time soon.
Stoners and crack addicts aren't incapable of working. They choose not to work, that's the difference.
If I get what you're saying, your friend is sick and uses marijuana for medical purposes only. I don't classify those types of people as stoners or drug addicts because it is a necessity.
As long as your friend doesn't abuse or take advantage of the system, then I see nothing wrong with it.
There is a difference between responsible people and "abusers" who take advantage of the system. Those hardcore drug addicts have no intention to work once given the opportunity, that's the harsh reality in the United States. Unfortunately, those people exist and take pride in that fact.
And besides, that drug testing law only expands screening. It doesn't strictly prohibit them from receiving unemployment benefits.
As for your second paragraph, I have no objections to giving aid and supporting the unfortunate. We can allocate the money to their job training and well-being, but not their drug use.
They have to show that they are capable and willing to work if given the chance. There's no point to invest money in their job training if they are going to become addicted to weed and cocaine. They need to prove that they are honest and responsible first.
The government is not drug testing for cigarettes or booze. A lot of Americans smoke and drink on a daily basis.
It's strictly testing for illegal drug use and those who are taking advantage of the system.
People make bad choices, I understand, but if they want help, they need to turn themselves around.
If they are dead set in continuing their way of life, then even "unemployment benefits" won't be able to solve their stubbornness. They need to understand that they cannot just abuse the system and expect to get away with it.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Pretty good article. It's good to see that Modi and Trump are getting along well, including with other world leaders at the summit.
And congratulations on India's economic growth. It's good to see another ally doing well.
Also, it's good to see that things have changed a lot since the Vietnam War. Hopefully, the United States and all the Asian countries will stay as good friends.
Cooperation is always more beneficial than being enemies.
How is someone addicted to illegal drugs any different than an alcoholic or smoker? They are both addicted to a substance where the government chooses which one to profit; thus deems legal. If someone who is receiving "handouts" and is doing something illegal, that is for the police. If they get thrown in jail, who pays for it? So really this whole punishing addicts isn't working and is costing tax payers. Think of the cost to test every unemployed person for what a small percentage? This isn't about money it's about tyranny and a police like state rather than giving people freedoms. Really, this "war on drugs" is a pissing contest that is costing the US government money and lives.
Come on, the war on drugs is one of the most idiotic things the US government has ever done. I would say it is the most stupid one but given the US's attitude toward climate change which varies between it not existing and it being a china conspiracy (the first which is unfathomably stupid and the second which.... I simply don't have the vocabulary to describe how stupid it is) then the drug on wars seems actually fairly smart in comparison. Still, the war on drugs has never in the entirety of it's history led to a single victory. The war on drugs is supposed to target drug production, distribution, consumption and violence.... However literally all of those have increased exponentially since the war on drugs started. The war on drugs basically amounts to 50 years of utter and catastrophic failure in terms of results, which are nonexistent, resources, because burning money by the truckload would have produced about the same results, and human lives. And if the increase in drug production, distribution, consumption and violence wasn't enough you also have it's special contribution to jail overpopulation. The war on drugs is the embarrassing failure that keeps on giving and the only reason it is not the single most stupid thing the US has ever done is became climate change denial is the current US policy. It literally takes "climate change denial" levels of stupidity for this to not be the most stupid US policy...
War on drugs seems more like justification to make certain drugs illegal PURELY to arrest people for cheaper labor, rather than because drugs are bad. Also, I don't know if it's true as I can't be assed to research at work, but more black people are incarcerated for selling or doing drugs like weed than white people? Wouldn't be surprising if that's true.
And, I generally use multiple sources, not just liberal or conservative. Even at times conservative sources tend to get things right or right enough.
And I'm still pretty sure majority of the world leaders don't respect Trump because of how childish he behaves and how ignorant, divisive, and full of shit he is. his tweets say a lot about him - namely that he's a bully with a fragile ego who can't even handle criticism and is obsessed with Hillary and Obama. I mean, despite Hillary losing and Obama not being the president anymore, Trump still talks about them in order to score points with the right and to either distract or make himself look better.
War on drugs seems more like justification to make certain drugs illegal PURELY to arrest people for cheaper labor, rather than because drugs are bad. Also, I don't know if it's true as I can't be assed to research at work, but more black people are incarcerated for selling or doing drugs like weed than white people? Wouldn't be surprising if that's true.
And, I generally use multiple sources, not just liberal or conservative. Even at times conservative sources tend to get things right or right enough.
And I'm still pretty sure majority of the world leaders don't respect Trump because of how childish he behaves and how ignorant, divisive, and full of shit he is. his tweets say a lot about him - namely that he's a bully with a fragile ego who can't even handle criticism and is obsessed with Hillary and Obama. I mean, despite Hillary losing and Obama not being the president anymore, Trump still talks about them in order to score points with the right and to either distract or make himself look better.
Prison? I don't remember the details, but few "sources" have been saying how a lot of people who get arrested get a harsher sentence than they should, and in many cases a lot of them end up doing labor for cheap at certain prisons.
Have you not seen Orange is the new Black where they make panties for pennies. I don't know if that is fully true but I couldn't be surprised if companies let prisoners do work.
How is someone addicted to illegal drugs any different than an alcoholic or smoker? They are both addicted to a substance where the government chooses which one to profit; thus deems legal. If someone who is receiving "handouts" and is doing something illegal, that is for the police. If they get thrown in jail, who pays for it? So really this whole punishing addicts isn't working and is costing tax payers. Think of the cost to test every unemployed person for what a small percentage? This isn't about money it's about tyranny and a police like state rather than giving people freedoms. Really, this "war on drugs" is a pissing contest that is costing the US government money and lives.
In terms of addiction, I never said that drug users were different from alcoholics and smokers. So I think we agree there.
However, from a law enforcement perspective, it clearly makes a difference. It's a lot easier for cops to tell whether somebody has been drinking recently compared to whether they have been taking drugs recently.
If the police pulls over a drunk driver, they can accurately show the court proof that the driver had been drinking excessive amounts of alcohol just a few hours before. Which is illegal and sufficient evidence for an arrest.
On the other hand, if the police pulls over a drug addict on the road, the driver can make the case that "He smoked the night before, which is legal. He just happened to drive to work the next day while intoxicated."
In an event like this, the cops will have a hard time proving to the court that the driver was irresponsible. Because the driver was simply suffering from the after-effects due to smoking at home and didn't intend to drive "while intoxicated".
The costs for drug screening isn't as costly as giving unemployment benefits to citizens for extended periods of time. The unemployment benefit offices have to drug screen other people anyways, so it's not like this is something new. It's been happening for a long time now.
And besides, they are actually required to administer these tests. It's just that some laws have restricted them from expanding the range of applicants.
So the money issue isn't going to have drastic changes because of this.
As for the drug tests, they're not going to put you in jail for using marijuana (at least in some states)...
You just can't receive unemployment benefits. So the issue with prison cost is negligible with these new laws.
As for cocaine users, they directly violate U.S. law. So they are supposed to be put in jail for that anyways. If they're not caught by the drug tests, they'll be arrested on the streets.
I don't think it's possible to make a case for them in court. Either way, the end results will be the same. They aren't protected by the law and will face consequences if they are caught.
In terms of addiction, I never said that drug users were different from alcoholics and smokers. So I think we agree there.
However, from a law enforcement perspective, it clearly makes a difference. It's a lot easier for cops to tell whether somebody has been drinking recently compared to whether they have been taking drugs recently.
If the police pulls over a drunk driver, they can accurately show the court proof that the driver had been drinking excessive amounts of alcohol just a few hours before. Which is illegal and sufficient evidence for an arrest.
On the other hand, if the police pulls over a crack addict on the road, the driver can make the case that "He smoked the night before, which is legal. He just happened to drive to work the next day while intoxicated."
In an event like this, the cops will have a hard time proving to the court that the driver was irresponsible. Because the driver was simply suffering from the after-effects due to smoking at home and didn't intend to drive "while intoxicated".
The costs for drug screening isn't as costly as giving unemployment benefits to citizens for extended periods of time. The unemployment benefit offices have to drug screen other people anyways, so it's not like this is something new. It's been happening for a long time now.
And besides, they are actually required to administer these tests. It's just that some laws have restricted them from expanding the range of applicants.
So the money issue isn't going to have drastic changes because of this.
As for the drug tests, they're not going to put you in jail for using marijuana (at least in some states)...
You just can't receive unemployment benefits. So the issue with prison cost is negligible with these new laws.
As for cocaine users, they directly violate U.S. law. So they are supposed to be put in jail for that anyways. If they're not caught by the drug tests, they'll be arrested on the streets.
I don't think it's possible to make a case for them in court. Either way, the end results will be the same. They aren't protected by the law and will face consequences if they are caught.
Do you have proof testing people and the increase in incarcerations is cheaper than unemployment benefits?
That would be costly putting every cocaine user in jail. Besides, how is putting them in an institution where there are dealers going to help?
It's a breach of human rights because it's forcing people to take biological samples that are not required medically and they cannot fully consent. It's an invasion of privacy and holds the vulnerable at ransom. It maybe illegal to do certain drugs but obtaining information on who is doing drugs cannot break a person's right to biological consent.
Do you have proof testing people and the increase in incarcerations is cheaper than unemployment benefits?
That would be costly putting every cocaine user in jail. Besides, how is putting them in an institution where there are dealers going to help?
It's a breach of human rights because it's forcing people to take biological samples that are not required medically and they cannot fully consent. It's an invasion of privacy and holds the vulnerable at ransom. It maybe illegal to do certain drugs but obtaining information on who is doing drugs cannot break a person's right to biological consent.
Drug screenings only cost about $30 per test, on average in the United States. The highest a person will pay for a drug test is $50, although many people can actually get it for less than $30. And the good thing about it is that it is only a one time deal.
On the other hand, a person can receive unemployment benefits from anywhere between $40 and $450 per week for 26 weeks in some states. This number will add up if you have more applicants who are drug addicts.
As for cocaine users, again, it's not about the cost. With current U.S. laws, they will be put in prison if they are caught out on the streets with cocaine, regardless of how expensive jail is.
Even if crack addicts are qualified to receive unemployment benefits, the police would still arrest them for illegal drug use. In fact, possession of cocaine can be a felony in some states.
This issue extends beyond welfare. It's in direct violation with the law, which is a more serious problem.
Drug screenings only cost about $30 per test, on average in the United States. The highest a person will pay for a drug test is $50, although many people can actually get it for less than $30. And the good thing about it is that it is only a one time deal.
On the other hand, a person can receive unemployment benefits from anywhere between $40 and $450 per week for 26 weeks in some states. This number will add up if you have more applicants who are drug addicts.
As for cocaine users, again, it's not about the cost. With current U.S. laws, they will be put in prison if they are caught out on the streets with cocaine, regardless of how expensive jail is.
Even if crack addicts are qualified to receive unemployment benefits, the police would still arrest them for illegal drug use. In fact, possession of cocaine can be a felony in some states.
This issue extends beyond welfare. It's in direct violation with the law, which is a more serious problem.
And you don't see the problem? They are using ones biology as a means for spying and conducting arrests, which is a violation of human rights.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Also, who is to say they aquired drugs with the unemployment benefits? Some drug addicts do sexual favours for their addictions or resort to theft. There are other illegal activities someone can use unemployment benefits (illegal gambling, kidnapping, terrorism, etc) why drugs? If they have an addiction (which is a disease) and to deny them a means of living is another violation of human rights.
Some drug addicts even panhandle to get money. Blaming it all on unemployment just sounds like a cop-out excuse to prevent or make it harder for innocent people to get the benefits and be able to make ends meet. Besides, I'd rather be more concerned about people using the benefits to buy alcohol as that's actually legal and just as damaging, if not more. In moderation, most drugs and alcohol are okay, but when done in excess, both are dangerous. Except, alcohol is more likely to affect innocent people due to shit like drunk driving.
And you don't see the problem? They are using ones biology as a means for spying and conducting arrests, which is a violation of human rights.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Also, who is to say they aquired drugs with the unemployment benefits? Some drug addicts do sexual favours for their addictions or resort to theft. There are other illegal activities someone can use unemployment benefits (illegal gambling, kidnapping, terrorism, etc) why drugs? If they have an addiction (which is a disease) and to deny them a means of living is another violation of human rights.
Do I see a problem? Yes, scientifically, there is one.
Would I stop drug addicts? No, I'm socially liberal and it's their body anyways.
But I don't see why the U.S. should not ban drugs... If anything, making cocaine and heroin illegal is actually doing the drug addicts a favor. Stuff like crack will cause people to have heart attacks, strokes, respiratory failures, seizures, and convulsions.
If a woman uses drugs during pregnancy, it can also kill the fetus or make the baby addicted to drugs before he/she is even born. So the kid might pay the consequences later on in life because of the mother's choices.
And at this point, I would stop the drug addict because now their actions are starting to affect another human being and not just themselves.
There are studies that show people are more likely to have violent behaviors if they are addicted to cocaine, so I don't see any health benefits or positive remarks about it, other than temporarily getting high.
Do I see a problem? Yes, scientifically, there is one.
Would I stop drug addicts? No, I'm socially liberal and it's their body anyways.
But I don't see why the U.S. should not ban drugs... If anything, making cocaine and heroin illegal is actually doing the drug addicts a favor. Stuff like crack will cause people to have heart attacks, strokes, respiratory failures, seizures, and convulsions.
If a woman uses drugs during pregnancy, it can also kill the fetus or make the baby addicted to drugs before he/she is even born. So the kid might pay the consequences later on in life because of the mother's choices.
And at this point, I would stop the drug addict because now their actions are starting to affect another human being and not just themselves.
There are studies that show people are more likely to have violent behaviors if they are addicted to cocaine, so I don't see any health benefits or positive remarks about it, other than temporarily getting high.
I think we can all agree we don't want drug addicts but how to help them or prevent people from using in the first place needs a different approach. Punishing them from using won't work and denying their unemployment benefits will most likely make them homeless or in jail. That's why instead of drug testing them they should have more clinics to help.
I think we can all agree we don't want drug addicts but how to help them or prevent people from using in the first place needs a different approach. Punishing them from using won't work and denying their unemployment benefits will most likely make them homeless or in jail. That's why instead of drug testing them they should have more clinics to help.
I do agree that we need to help out the drug addicts by introducing more clinics and institutions designed to assist them with their addiction.
I also believe that economical support is necessary to help them avoid jail and homelessness.
And actually, the drug screening laws provide them with an incentive to quit taking drugs. If they want unemployment benefits, they have to give up their drugs first. That's doing them a huge favor because that will force them to let go of their drugs, and in return, they will be given money to support themselves.
And if those drug addicts know that they will be drug screened before receiving unemployment benefits, common sense should tell them that the money is worth more than the drugs.
I've only took a couple months break, only to find out we got some more of 'em Trumpsters.
...Oh well, at least they're somewhat reasonable compared to many other Trumptards I've seen, and certainly much better than the one fucker who accused me of being some "Terrorist Sympathizer" just because I've touched his nerve with his Warmongering thirst.
I'm just saying that I don't care if people like Trump, but I do have a major problem with them if they decide to be an apologist over stupid shit he's done (For example, potential overturning the Ivory rulings or saying his picks are qualified).
Anyways, I'm genuinely surprised that Moore is receiving a lot of support from some shit branch of Christianity called "Evangelicals" after the sexual allegations are out. Now that they've made their endorsement, I don't ever want to hear them preach about "modesty" or "family values".
Of course, the conservatives aren't the only ones that have this shit going on. Al Franken is accused as well, except there's evidence; the only thing I can respect him about this scenario is that he did admit it was true and apologized, for which the victim accepted his apology (that still doesn't mean he's not a piece of shit). Quite an interesting time to live in...
There's been an update to our forum rules to broaden crediting/sourcing to all series news/announcement, etc. Please read HERE
Oscars Contest 2023 is LIVE! Click HERE for a chance to win your Oscar!
It's back! MH presents a celebration of manga/anime culture; Mangahelpers Awards 2022 is NOW LIVE!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
