American Politics

[Reebi]

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

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.

 

[Nemispelled]

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.

 

[Reebi]

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.

 

[Nemispelled]

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.

 

[Reebi]

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, Nov 17, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 17, 2017 ---

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.

 

[M3J]

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.

 

[Nemispelled]

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, Nov 17, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 17, 2017 ---

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.

 

[Reebi]

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.

 

[Nemispelled]

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.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

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...

 

[Reebi]

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.

If it were that simple most people wouldn't have a drug problem. When people are addicted to drugs their bodies become depedant on the substance and cannot think clearly. You and I were fortunate that our brains didn't have a high risk personality that would resort to drugs and can never understand the life of a drug addict. When I was unemployed a couple years ago I became addicted to video games and my husband jokes that I am addicted to this forum. It's not on the same level as a drug addict but I learned that everyone has different demons and burdens one faces. Unless one is living his/her life one cannot understand and instruct what is the best way to deal with their problems because they aren't loving in his/her shoes.

 

[kkck]

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...

It's not really a surprise TBH. During the election, which was a much more serious issue than moore could ever hope to be, you also had a number of women coming out in how trump had treated them along with the bush video and even then evangelicals supported trump. Simple reality is that they would rather have a republican sex assaulter than a democrat saint. Which TBH is not that weird IMO, policy wise they will still obviously have more in common with the republican.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

It's not really a surprise TBH. During the election, which was a much more serious issue than moore could ever hope to be, you also had a number of women coming out in how trump had treated them along with the bush video and even then evangelicals supported trump. Simple reality is that they would rather have a republican sex assaulter than a democrat saint. Which TBH is not that weird IMO, policy wise they will still obviously have more in common with the republican.

True. Evangelicals certainly replaced Jesus with Trump. They certainly deserve to rename "Church of Jesus" into "Church of Trumptards".
At this point, I'm already convinced that they're just ideologues, much like one guy around here who voted against Trump only to fall to his knees to suck on his tiny hands because "Muh Military!".

 

[Nemispelled]

If it were that simple most people wouldn't have a drug problem. When people are addicted to drugs their bodies become depedant on the substance and cannot think clearly. You and I were fortunate that our brains didn't have a high risk personality that would resort to drugs and can never understand the life of a drug addict. When I was unemployed a couple years ago I became addicted to video games and my husband jokes that I am addicted to this forum. It's not on the same level as a drug addict but I learned that everyone has different demons and burdens one faces. Unless one is living his/her life one cannot understand and instruct what is the best way to deal with their problems because they aren't loving in his/her shoes.

True, and that's why I have no issues with helping them out.

In my opinion, getting paid for quitting drugs is the biggest incentive that a drug addict could have. Of course, I'm not asking them to turn around their lives by themselves. There will still be clinics and psychologists to help them with their mental state and addiction.

It's possible that some of those drug users became addicted because their mothers took drugs while being pregnant.

That's why it's important for the U.S. to deter drug use with actual laws. I'm not supporting the idea that we let the drug addicts rot out on the streets. But at the same time, it is beneficial for drug users if they comply with unemployment benefit rules, especially since it's a win-win situation for both parties involved.

Not only will the drug addicts get paid, but they will have a reason to stop using drugs.

 

[Reebi]

True, and that's why I have no issues with helping them out.

In my opinion, getting paid for quitting drugs is the biggest incentive that a drug addict could have. Of course, I'm not asking them to turn around their lives by themselves. There will still be clinics and psychologists to help them with their mental state and addiction.

It's possible that some of those drug users became addicted because their mothers took drugs while being pregnant.

That's why it's important for the U.S. to deter drug use with actual laws. I'm not supporting the idea that we let the drug addicts rot out on the streets. But at the same time, it is beneficial for drug users if they comply with unemployment benefit rules, especially since it's a win-win situation for both parties involved.

Not only will the drug addicts get paid, but they will have a reason to stop using drugs.

The law isn't stopping people from using drugs and telling they will lose unemployment benefits won't stop them. Access to free healthcare will help them and in the US treatment for mental illness is expensive and not an option for those who are impoverished. Some addicts will never be cured and is something they have to live with and need methadone clinics. Their reason should be to help better themselves not fear of losing their benefits, which could create more anxiety and thus a resort to drug use. Grown adults don't need the government to act like their parent but as a support system.

 

[Nemispelled]

The law isn't stopping people from using drugs and telling they will lose unemployment benefits won't stop them. Access to free healthcare will help them and in the US treatment for mental illness is expensive and not an option for those who are impoverished. Some addicts will never be cured and is something they have to live with and need methadone clinics. Their reason should be to help better themselves not fear of losing their benefits, which could create more anxiety and thus a resort to drug use. Grown adults don't need the government to act like their parent but as a support system.

The law may not stop everybody from using drugs, but it will prevent the drug addicts from abusing the system.

And who's going to pay for all the drug addicts' free healthcare? If drug testing was already expensive by your standards, then I don't see where each state can get the money to provide free healthcare to everybody who decides to take drugs.



People don't take drugs because they are afraid of losing their benefits. If they didn't take drugs in the first place, then they should have nothing to fear while applying for unemployment benefits.

If they have "fears" of losing their benefits, that means they are already taking drugs, regardless of whether their application goes through or not.



The government can act as a support system for its applicants, but they need to comply with the rules of society first and show that they are capable of working if an opportunity arises.

 

[Reebi]

The law may not stop everybody from using drugs, but it will prevent the drug addicts from abusing the system.

And who's going to pay for all the drug addicts' free healthcare? If drug testing was already expensive by your standards, then I don't see where each state can get the money to provide free healthcare to everybody who decides to take drugs.



People don't take drugs because they are afraid of losing their benefits. If they didn't take drugs in the first place, then they should have nothing to fear while applying for unemployment benefits.

If they have "fears" of losing their benefits, that means they are already taking drugs, regardless of whether their application goes through or not.



The government can act as a support system for its applicants, but they need to comply with the rules of society first and show that they are capable of working if an opportunity arises.

I never mentioned drug testing being expensive, I asked if you had proof of the the cost of incarceration and testing was less than benefits based on you saying it would cost more.

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.

If the US government has money on incarceration for many years for drug use, they can afford to give treatement for those that struggle with drug addicts.

It's naïve to believe people can get 100% better after a visit to rehab. Drug addiction can be a lifelong curse. Just because some view the law as absolute didn't mean it is. Laws were created based on what politicans see best not what is actually in public interest. Therefore, laws need updates and drug use shouldn't be a crime.

I think we are going around in circles now.

 

[M3J]

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.

Making cocaine and heroin illegal is only doing sellers a favor because they can charge as much as they want and control the quality the way they want, so someone wanting to do drugs could pay $500 for "heroin" that's actually 25% heroin and 75% other shit that's not good. You're not going to stop cocaine and heroin from being sold, so why not make it so that it's not as stigmatized, and people can either get the drugs safely or can be safe while doing drugs? Plus, it takes away income from sellers, especially gangs and cartels.

how would you stop the drug addict? And I don't think anyone has ever said drugs were good or even defended drugs. We'd all love to get rid of drugs, they're horrible. The problem is that it's a pipe dream because it's a money-making business, and people want to get high. There really is no benefit to it even if getting high gives the user temporarily relief.

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.

You do realize that there are other ways to get money, and that unemployment benefits just provide an easier way, right?

---

Unrelated. I didn't realize until now that most Trump supporters' problem with Obama wasn't that he was really divisive or racist, but that he wasn't a white supremacist who supported cops. I see a lot of them complaining about how Obama divided the country or how he's racist, but they all cheer for Trump and even reiterate the racist, divisive things he says. At this point, Trump could literally shit on the troops and give info on them to the enemies and still not lose support until he goes left/liberal. That's probably what it'll take for people to stop believing in Trump.

 

[Nemispelled]

Making cocaine and heroin illegal is only doing sellers a favor because they can charge as much as they want and control the quality the way they want, so someone wanting to do drugs could pay $500 for "heroin" that's actually 25% heroin and 75% other shit that's not good. You're not going to stop cocaine and heroin from being sold, so why not make it so that it's not as stigmatized, and people can either get the drugs safely or can be safe while doing drugs? Plus, it takes away income from sellers, especially gangs and cartels.

how would you stop the drug addict? And I don't think anyone has ever said drugs were good or even defended drugs. We'd all love to get rid of drugs, they're horrible. The problem is that it's a pipe dream because it's a money-making business, and people want to get high. There really is no benefit to it even if getting high gives the user temporarily relief.

Making cocaine and heroin illegal will give cops a reason to arrest the drug addicts and put them in jail.

As for the street selling, I don't really care if it's 25% heroin and 75% other stuff. If these crack addicts want the drug so badly, then it's up to them to find the better quality drugs. I'm not gonna go out of my way to help them find the healthiest drug around.

Again, it's their body, they can do whatever they want. They just can't complain when they have to face the health consequences.

Obviously, I can't stop every drug addict, I'm well aware of that. There will always be people who will get them from the black market and other private dealings. Laws are put in place to govern the general population, not the addicts. That's the only way you're gonna have order in society.

As for the people who want to break the rules, they can... but I can only do so much to help them after they've made their choices.

You do realize that there are other ways to get money, and that unemployment benefits just provide an easier way, right?

Sure, but why make it easier for people to take advantage of the system?

If they want to drain money from programs that are designed to help out the unfortunate, might as well make them jump through a few loops.

Just because there are other ways to make money, it doesn't mean that we should let the doors wide open for them to abuse the system.

 

[kkck]

Why so focused on people taking advantage of the system? Is there any evidence at all of widespread abuse of the system? Even if there was, which as far as I can tell isn't the case, why not simply fix the system so that it doesn't get abused rather than cut off every form of social safety net? Most other developed nations have social safety nets in place and they don't have the rampant abuse problems the US conservative wing believes exists everywhere.... Sure, the systems aren't perfect but... they work.

And again, the war on drugs is a pointless endeavor that has resulted in nothing but catastrophic failure on all possible accounts. Nowadays we know that decriminalization and rehabilitation is cheaper and helps avoid drug violence. And there is evidence that such a thing doesn't lead to further increases in drug use. The war on drugs is a pointless endeavor where there is no possible victory for anyone involved. It's never going to be won, it can't be won, the reality here is that the war on drugs even makes the drug problem worst.