dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed
This is a sub-selection from Internet


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to brianiscool

Re: Internet

Don't for get the "It's for the children" card....



Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

Actually, especially in poor neighborhoods, something like the internet, where you can learn and better yourself instead of buying booze or guns, would be very helpful for children.

But these people need to have ambition as well..


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

said by Metatron2008:

Actually, especially in poor neighborhoods, something like the internet, where you can learn and better yourself instead of buying booze or guns, would be very helpful for children.

If they can buy booze and guns can't they also buy internet service?

said by Metatron2008:

But these people need to have ambition as well..

Ding ding ding, we have a winner....


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by Crookshanks:

If they can buy booze and guns can't they also buy internet service?

The booze part is the perfect reason why anyone on government assistance should be forced to submit to and pass routine drug, alcohol and tobacco screenings (the ones where you are watched as you pee in the cup, or perhaps a blood test, etc.) as a condition for getting help. I'd go even further and require that the government also check with cable TV, cell phone and other providers to ensure that these people really are so poor that they aren't purchasing any of these things either.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Drug testing is fraught with biological/technological limitations that create very perverse incentives. The metabolites of THC (marijuana) show up for weeks after use, while the metabolites from far more harmful substances are out of your system within 48-72 hours. Alcohol is gone within a few hours to a day at most, so testing for it is ineffective, unless the person is stupid enough to show up to the test drunk.

Rather than impose drug testing, I'd rather see a mandate similar to that in place for those on unemployment. You should be required to document your efforts to obtain gainful employment, in the absence of efforts to find gainful employment you should not be able to receive assistance. We also need to remove the perverse incentives from our social safety net. A lot of people are stuck at an income level where they are penalized if they make more money. I know a single Mom who turned down a job offer because she would have lost access to state funded healthcare for her children. What's the point of making an extra $5,000/yr if it means you have to pay an extra $12,000/yr to insure your kids? Her decision made perfect sense from an economic standpoint.

There are other sociological issues at play that harm the poor, though the ability of Government to check some of these issues is limited at best. There are things we can do though, as a starting point I'd really like to see our country have an honest discussion about the merits/lack thereof of our societal experiment with drug prohibition, preferably without the extremist propaganda so often heard from both sides.

I'm not in favor of making heroin as accessible as beer, but it's hard to deny that prohibition has driven a wedge between the police and the communities they are supposed to protect. It's hard to deny that it creates opportunities for unsavory elements to pray on the weak and downtrodden. It has driven the para-militarization of our police, who here is old enough to remember when your local beat cop had a revolver on his belt and perhaps a shotgun in his car? Now he's got a 17+ shot pistol, three or four reloads, a select-fire AR-15 in the cruiser, with the SWAT team's armored vehicles on hot standby. Asset forfeiture laws have made a mockery of due process, you're presumed guilty and must prove your innocence if the Government seeks to seize your assets.

Alas, I don't think we're ready for an honest discussion about this issue. There's too much propaganda on both sides, while too many people are invested in the status quo.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

2 edits

said by Crookshanks:

Drug testing is fraught with biological/technological limitations that create very perverse incentives. The metabolites of THC (marijuana) show up for weeks after use, while the metabolites from far more harmful substances are out of your system within 48-72 hours. Alcohol is gone within a few hours to a day at most, so testing for it is ineffective, unless the person is stupid enough to show up to the test drunk.

True, but it does create some incentive to stay clean, and it sends the message if someone wishes to partake of such forms of entertainment, to do it on one's own dime. And besides, if most people have to pass drug tests in order to work, then it is perfectly appropriate to insist that a person on the dole pass a drug test to receive benefits.
said by Crookshanks:

Rather than impose drug testing, I'd rather see a mandate similar to that in place for those on unemployment. You should be required to document your efforts to obtain gainful employment, in the absence of efforts to find gainful employment you should not be able to receive assistance.
We also need to remove the perverse incentives from our social safety net. A lot of people are stuck at an income level where they are penalized if they make more money. I know a single Mom who turned down a job offer because she would have lost access to state funded healthcare for her children. What's the point of making an extra $5,000/yr if it means you have to pay an extra $12,000/yr to insure your kids? Her decision made perfect sense from an economic standpoint.

Agreed.
said by Crookshanks:

I'm not in favor of making heroin as accessible as beer, but it's hard to deny that prohibition has driven a wedge between the police and the communities they are supposed to protect. It's hard to deny that it creates opportunities for unsavory elements to pray on the weak and downtrodden. It has driven the para-militarization of our police, who here is old enough to remember when your local beat cop had a revolver on his belt and perhaps a shotgun in his car? Now he's got a 17+ shot pistol, three or four reloads, a select-fire AR-15 in the cruiser, with the SWAT team's armored vehicles on hot standby. Asset forfeiture laws have made a mockery of due process, you're presumed guilty and must prove your innocence if the Government seeks to seize your assets.

IMO The "War on Drugs" should be ended. It is bad policy, ineffective, and then there is what you said... it is a literal shredding of our Bill of Rights.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

said by pnh102:

And besides, if most people have to pass drug tests in order to work, then it is perfectly appropriate to insist that a person on the dole pass a drug test to receive benefits.

Well, YMMV, but I've worked at three jobs in my day, and only my current one required a drug test. That was only at hire, not random testing without cause, so you can partake all you want, so long as you don't show up to work stoned. Frankly I'm not even sure why they do the test at hire, other than to weed out the people who are so stupid as to not be able to abstain before the test they know is coming. It's pretty sad but I know of more than one position that went unfilled because the chosen candidate failed the drug screening. Just how stupid do you have to be to fail a drug test that you knew was coming weeks in advance?

The whole concept bothers me on a philosophical level. Unless they have reason to suspect I'm under the influence at work, why is it any of their business? Now we've got employers testing for nicotine, and that's a legal substance! Hell, I have an interview scheduled at just such an employer. After the test, should I get the job, I'm sorely tempted to smoke a cigar, just on general principle.

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now. It's nice to converse with someone who recognizes the futility of prohibition, now if we could only get some of our legislators to look at the issue objectively....


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

IMO The "War on Drugs" should be ended. It is bad policy, ineffective, and then there is what you said... it is a literal shredding of our Bill of Rights.

Everyone should agree with that, for financial reasons if nothing else.
The cost of chasing, proscuting and housing 2 million plus, non violent, mostly personal use drug "PoW's" boggles the mind and creates a dream businees opportunity inside this country (and the rest of the world) for the most violent members worst cartels on the planet.
decrimializtion, minmal taxation (need to keep the profit motive near zero) and free treatment would release billions towards health care and MANY other worthwhile NEEDS in this counrty without any tax increases.
Getting back to the point where it is the govt for the people, by the people, is a long road, but this would be a big step.