American Politics

[Reebi]

Firstly, Trump supporters, what are your sources? List them, as if you use YouTube videos from biased accounts and right wing media like Breitbart as sources, then I'm not gonna waste my time with you. CNN is far more reliable than 90% of the right wing media, from my experience of fact checking most things they've said.


Safe injection sites are actually a good idea, thinking about it. You can either prevent overdose or save addicts who overdosed, it's much better than addicts doing it in their homes without anyone there to monitor them. But I agree, addicts aren't criminals, and a lot of them turn to drugs or alcohol as a way to cope, especially with trauma. Demonizing them isn't going to help, and forcing them to quit or get help won't either. They should be offered options to get help, not be abandoned or shamed.

It also means less needles on the streets or people shooting up in front of people.

 

[M3J]

Wouldn't that still keep the same amount of needles though?

 

[Arjuna]

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.ndtv.com/india-news/donald-trump-praises-indias-growth-story-pm-modi-at-apec-summit-1773903?amp=1&akamai-rum=off

@Nemispelled

 

[Nemispelled]

Calling it "free handout" says a lot about a person, especially if they're okay with the wealthy getting handouts that they don't need. I don't understand why it's bad for the poor to get "free handouts," while it's acceptable for the wealthy to do whatever they can to get even wealthier.

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.

I never said anything about wealthy people though. I don't approve of large businesses and corporations scamming the general population and I've never advocated for greedy people who would throw morals out the window to get rich.

It's not about your financial status. The drug testing is used to prevent drug addicts from abusing the system.

You will always have people who take advantage of the system when the government is giving unemployment benefits. That's unavoidable.

What about the wealthy people who do take advantage of the system and loopholes and are willing to hurt those less fortunate and/or the economy? Part of what hurt our economy was the bankers/those in finance embezzling and cheating people. I see less republicans/right wingers talk about that than they do about how welfare is bad or people shouldn't get free handouts.

I have no intention to defend the wealthy class who cheat their way to become rich.

I don't agree with embezzlement, as that is a crime in itself, which I am highly against.

The important thing here is not to generalize or assume who's right, in terms of the war between the rich vs. the poor. There's always dishonest people in every group and there's good ones out there too.

The main concern is the purpose of drug testing stoners and crack addicts, which allows the government to prevent crooked people from abusing the program.

Problem is relying mainly on military force, which ends up hurting the Muslims. I've read stories about how soldiers gunned down innocent Muslims and how some either raped or tried to rape the women.

Killing the ISIS soldiers isn't enough though, all we're doing is helpin them breed replacements.

No, we care about oil in the Middle East. This whole issue with the region traces back to at least over three decades ago, when we helped the Shah of Iran seek treatment here simply because he was our ally and ensured we can get what we need without the expense rising. Then we trained and armed the rebels because the regime they were opposing weren't acting in our favor or benefit. We played a huge part in creating terrorists. And more homegrown terrorists and violence have been from white Americans, and yet Trump and the right won't address that. If we cared about peace and stability in general, we'd be more attentive to gun control, not try to give everyone guns or debate against it, and we wouldn't be singling out Muslims or people of color.

Er, what? Point is that it's obvious Trump is trying to make things worse by getting more people to hate Muslims and divide the country, all for support and votes. Because of his bullshit, more Muslims face prejudice and violence, and the country as a whole is divided even more, especially when he says shit like "fire the NFL players who kneel!" but tries to stay quiet or not blame the guilty side when he "condemned" the violence by white supremacists.

If BLM protested peacefully, I guarantee you Trump will condemn them and cry about them. If white supremacists and Nazis rioted and killed multiple people and destroyed businesses, I'm 90% sure Trump will stay quiet for as long as possible and then finally tweet and make it look as if both sides are guilty, not just the bigots.

If you don't understand the issues with his tweets and the impact they have, then you're either ignorant or privileged.

Which is why it is important for the U.S. to work diplomatically with other Middle Eastern nations to help them get in control of their own citizens and country. Though, unfortunately, the prospect of military force is definitely necessary.

ISIS is a combat-based terrorist group. The only way to prevent them from taking more territories and influencing others is to destroy their members and negative ideologies.

The only reason why ISIS can breed replacements is because they still have some control (whether that be influential or territorial) over the Middle East.

I completely agree with you that the U.S. likely played a huge role in creating ISIS (since we partly caused the instability of the Middle East), but the only solution at this point is to eliminate all terrorists, both in our country and the original source of it.



All the rhetoric surrounding Trump vs. BLM, NFL, and Nazis vs. White Supremacists is just drama.

The real issue is the conflict in the Middle East.

And I tend to ignore all the drama about everything else.

While democrats are bad, republicans are way worse. They'll refuse to compromise with anything not even remotely right or conservative, and then they'll blame someone else. Trump is trying to let ACA fail so he can say ACA was flawed, and republicans are doing nothing about it. There are literally right wingers who will take any potshot at the other side, whether or not they have anything to do with whatever. I have yet to see bumper stickers criticizing conservatives or the right, even though they're probably the most ignorant, idiotic, and worst group.

What is the issue? What do you think the issue is? The issue for republicans is that the wealthy gets taxed, and by repealing ACA and letting people lose healthcare, the wealthy get to keep more money. A lot of republican citizens have even argued for ACA, said that it saved their lives, and yet republicans are trying to replace it with a shitty healthcare. the first or second time, they canceled the repeal because they realized they'd be affected by ACA being repealed.

Is ACA perfect? No. Is it great? Depends on your point of view, but many Americans are thankful for ACA because it allowed them to finally be able to get healthcare. Is ACA a step in the right direction? Definitely yes. Are the republican politicians trying to fix that or do what's good for the people? Hell no, they're doing what's best for them and the wealthy.

Yeah, I don't side with either the democrats or the republicans. I take it that you are the same way?

I'm politically and economically conservative, but I'm the most socially liberal guy you'll ever find.

A lot of democrats and republicans are a joke. Most of them just judge based off of their own beliefs, it doesn't really have anything to do with their party.

 

[Nemispelled]

What would you call a "handout"? Someone who can't work and have to take government money so they have feed themselves, their families and put a roof over their head? I know someone who is sick and uses medical marijuana because other medications have terrible side effects. Luckily in Canada this person is protected but had this person been in the US with these laws wouldn't that drive this person to homelessness?

People who are unemployed have a greater risk with depression and drug abuse. Instead of punishing them for their misfortune, why not put that money into better job training and support? People with a support network and the right resources have a better chance and less likely "abuse the system". Say that person was a smoker and used government money on cigarettes or booze? Is the government going to do tests for those? Or people who are just bad with money? This opens the door to punishing people who made bad choices, which everyone in their life has made at least one bad choice. Why punish people for being human?

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, Nov 11, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 11, 2017 ---

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.ndtv.com/india-news/donald-trump-praises-indias-growth-story-pm-modi-at-apec-summit-1773903?amp=1&akamai-rum=off

@Nemispelled

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.

 

[Nemispelled]

Here's some background info you might find helpful on how pervasive mental health issues are in the US. If you look at various metrics of physical and mental health in the world today you'll observe a rather gloomy picture. Life expectancy in the US, which tends to consistently edge upwards, fell this year. It was the first such decline in over two decades, the last being due to the rise of the AIDS epidemic.

The effects of obesity played a role, but part of the decline is also the result of a striking rise in deaths due to drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, and suicide. Antidepressant usage has increased 400% in the past 30 years. One in six Americans has taken at least one psychiatric drug, usually for depression or anxiety. And the suicide rate in the U.S. has reached its highest level in 30 years. It rose by 24% between 1999 and 2014, and has been accelerating since 2006, doubling the annual increases common 16 years ago. This surge in suicides has cut across nearly every age group, with the highest jump for men (who are more likely to self-medicate with drugs and alcohol)—an alarming 43%—found among those aged 45-64. Overdoses, both from illegal and prescription drugs, have risen sharply, especially for white Americans. It’s tripled for those 35-44 in this population and hit those 25-34 even harder—going up five times over. As one report on these sobering statistics notes, “The rising death rates for those young white adults…make them the first generation since the Vietnam War years of the mid-1960s to experience higher death rates in early adulthood than the generation that preceded it.”

Related to this uptick in substance abuse and suicide is a rise in perceived mental and physical troubles; middle-age white Americans have become increasingly likely to report pain, mental illness, struggles with socializing, and difficulty walking a quarter mile or up a flight of stairs.

Such issues extend beyond whites, and beyond American shores, however. The World Health Organization reports that suicide rates have gone up 60% in the last 50 years, with the most marked increase in developed countries. Rates of global depression have risen across nearly every culture and age group as well, so that it is poised to become the second most common health condition in the world, behind only heart disease, by 2020. And that’s just the mental side of things. Physically, health in many developed nations has gone down over the last several decades as obesity has gone up; today 2.1 billion people—almost a third of the world’s population—are overweight or obese. About 2/3 of adults in developed countries are sleep deprived.

Overall then, the West is less healthy, and less happy than it used to be, and that’s just based on those quantifiable factors that have been tracked and studied. Anecdotally, many people report maladies that are less serious, but still troubling. While they’re not clinically depressed, they feel out of sorts. Anxious. Restless. Disoriented. Unmotivated. Something about their life feels off somehow. They’re plagued by a malaise that’s difficult to describe but is nonetheless experienced as pervasive and entrenched. It’s a feeling that life could be better, more fulfilling somehow, but that this potential remains frustratingly unreachable.

What’s behind this seeming decline in quality of life? The state of the economy always comes up in such discussions, and certainly shouldn’t be discounted. Yet phenomena like the rise in suicide and depression predate the 2008 recession, and in some cases stretch much further back than that; Americans in fact report greater depressive symptoms now than they did during the 1930s.

Honestly, I don't fully understand it myself. Still, if you want to change the underlying behaviors that lead to people self-medicating, you need to be aware of environmental factors. Finding jobs is also becoming harder and harder. It's not unheard of for companies to take 2-3 months just to fill an entry-level position. I'd like to add too our employment situation is only going to get worse in the next few years, like our upcoming retail apocalypse.

I'm fully aware of the increasing rates of suicide and depression, and honestly, I wish the best for all those who are affected. I completely understand their struggles and I sympathize with them.

The underlying cause for all these problems is the fact that the social structure here in the U.S. is poorly managed. Society is ridiculously inefficient and unorganized. It's harder to find and secure a job these days, and that leads to unimaginable amounts of anxiety, depression, and frustration.

The main flaw with the United States is that they no longer value responsibility and work ethics. They focus too much on superficial results instead of honesty and dependability. They prefer to see competition instead of cooperation, which is quite a shame.



Regardless, I have no problem if people are using drugs for medical purposes.

But addiction is never a pretty sight. And especially in cases where people abuse drugs, it produces a negative outlook on their future. I support helping out people who are struggling, but we have to distinguish them from those who only intend to take advantage of society.

With that said, people need to show good behaviors in order for them to expect assistance. Abusing the system will only hurt both parties involved, not help the victim.

 

[M3J]

Yeah, I don't side with either the democrats or the republicans. I take it that you are the same way?

I am. I just find it easier to side with the democrats than with the republicans, although I am anti-right/conservative given their BS.

Stoners and crack addicts aren't incapable of working. They choose not to work, that's the difference.

Socially liberal people would know better than to say "stoners and crack addicts choose not to work." Dunno if you want to add heroin to this as well, but Philip Seymour Hoffman did heroin and still worked, putting out great performances. In fact, you might not even know if some employees are addicts, unless they really have a problem.

Stereotyping is no good.

---

Just another example of why Trump is a joke, and how he's making us look even worse. Trump's probably mentally still in high school.

Spoiler

 

[Nemispelled]

Socially liberal people would know better than to say "stoners and crack addicts choose not to work." Dunno if you want to add heroin to this as well, but Philip Seymour Hoffman did heroin and still worked, putting out great performances. In fact, you might not even know if some employees are addicts, unless they really have a problem.

Stereotyping is no good.

I have no problem if people want to be stoners and crack addicts for the rest of their life. It's their body and they have the freedom to do whatever they want.

However, if they start becoming a negative influence on society, such as abusing unemployment benefits, then that's where I draw the line.

There are some people who actually need the unemployment benefits to support themselves and their families. It would be unfair to those people if drug users depleted those funds because they enjoy getting high and can't control their addictions.



As for Philip Hoffman, I don't know of him, but if he put out great performances while taking heroin, then I guess he lived the life that he wanted.

According to his biography, it seems that his cause of death was "combined drug intoxication". But again, if he wanted to drug himself to death and lived a happy life, then I see no problem.

I support everybody living their lives to the fullest. And if they need help, I also support giving them the required assistance to put them back on track.

I just don't agree with those who want to cheat their way through honest systems designed to help out the unfortunate.

 

[M3J]

I have no problem if people want to be stoners and crack addicts for the rest of their life. It's their body and they have the freedom to do whatever they want.

However, if they start becoming a negative influence on society, such as abusing unemployment benefits, then that's where I draw the line.

There are some people who actually need the unemployment benefits to support themselves and their families. It would be unfair to those people if drug users depleted those funds because they enjoy getting high and can't control their addictions.



As for Philip Hoffman, I don't know of him, but if he put out great performances while taking heroin, then I guess he lived the life that he wanted.

According to his biography, it seems that his cause of death was "combined drug intoxication". But again, if he wanted to drug himself to death and lived a happy life, then I see no problem.

I support everybody living their lives to the fullest. And if they need help, I also support giving them the required assistance to put them back on track.

I just don't agree with those who want to cheat their way through honest systems designed to help out the unfortunate.

What about nonaddicts who abuse unemployment benefits? Alcoholics? You keep bringing up stoners and crack addicts as if they're the only ones who'd exploit unemployment benefits or have negative influence on society when it seems people like Trump and Blue Lives Matter are more of negative influences on the society.

Again, you show ignorance. Not all of them enjoy getting high, a lot of them use drugs to cope. I also don't know why you make stoners sound like they're bad, especially since weed/marijuana is probably the safest drug out there.

He stopped taking heroin but after years, if not at least a decade, got back on it because he was going through issues. I'm sure most people who die of overdose don't want to die, which is why we should be able to save those who overdose.

But you don't know who cheats, how they cheat, and the demographics, it seems. You're just singling out addicts due to stereotypes.

---

Unrelated note, I'm still waiting for any Trump supporters to give me the sources they use for info. I'm not interested in debating with anyone who gets information from a YouTube account called "Libtards" or from fake news like Breitbart.

 

[Nemispelled]

What about nonaddicts who abuse unemployment benefits? Alcoholics? You keep bringing up stoners and crack addicts as if they're the only ones who'd exploit unemployment benefits or have negative influence on society when it seems people like Trump and Blue Lives Matter are more of negative influences on the society.

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.

Again, you show ignorance. Not all of them enjoy getting high, a lot of them use drugs to cope. I also don't know why you make stoners sound like they're bad, especially since weed/marijuana is probably the safest drug out there.

He stopped taking heroin but after years, if not at least a decade, got back on it because he was going through issues. I'm sure most people who die of overdose don't want to die, which is why we should be able to save those who overdose.

But you don't know who cheats, how they cheat, and the demographics, it seems. You're just singling out addicts due to stereotypes.

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.

 

[M3J]

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.

 

[Nemispelled]

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.

Giving them unemployment benefits does help. The problem is what they'll spend the money on.

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.

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.

 

[M3J]

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.

 

[SleipnirX]

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

 

[Nemispelled]

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):


Nguyen Xuan Phuc (Prime Minister of Vietnam) - http://www.atimes.com/article/trump-phuc-rekindle-us-vietnam-warming-trend/

Narendra Modi (Prime Minister of India) - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...ies-pm-modi-to-trump/articleshow/61628409.cms

Ashraf Ghani (Afghan President) - https://www.circa.com/story/2017/09...with-afghanistan-president-ashraf-ghani-at-un

Reuven Rivlin (Israeli President) - http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Po...breakable-bond-upon-presidents-arrival-492520

King Abdullah II (King of Jordan) - http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Jo...-help-handling-the-Temple-Mount-crisis-501117



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."

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 14, 2017 ---

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.

 

[Reebi]

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, Nov 11, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 11, 2017 ---

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.

 

[kkck]

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...

 

[M3J]

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.

 

[kkck]

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.

Arrest people for cheap labor? This would be actual slavery, where in the US has this happened?

 

[M3J]

Arrest people for cheap labor? This would be actual slavery, where in the US has this happened?

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.