Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 9

 

2011-07-02 20:53:22
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

This ^
They sell the foodstamps (the ebt card) for money to buy drugs.

Resident Floridian here. Good idea.
So what is going to happen once they receive welfare? Will there be the option of going into rehab, pass the tests again and either receive benefits again and/or assistance to re-enter the workforce?
Sure if they wanna pay for their rehab instead of drugs, I am all for it, let them go to rehab.

and if they pop again they can go into the hole for whatever leeching they received previously.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-02 20:56:28)

2011-07-02 21:17:18
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney
How can they pay for rehab if they are on welfare?

All that will happen in a great many cases is people will turn to crime, get caught and their imprisonment will cost the taxpayer 5-10 times what it was to have them on welfare. And the idea is to save tax dollars?

On the surface the sound byte sounds good, only if you don't dig any deeper.
2011-07-02 21:24:31
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

How can they pay for rehab if they are on welfare?

All that will happen in a great many cases is people will turn to crime, get caught and their imprisonment will cost the taxpayer 5-10 times what it was to have them on welfare. And the idea is to save tax dollars?

On the surface the sound byte sounds good, only if you don't dig any deeper.
How can they pay for drugs?


Great so you are in favor of the extortion of the taxpayer. Sorry, fuck that.
2011-07-02 21:33:41
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

How can they pay for rehab if they are on welfare?

All that will happen in a great many cases is people will turn to crime, get caught and their imprisonment will cost the taxpayer 5-10 times what it was to have them on welfare. And the idea is to save tax dollars?

On the surface the sound byte sounds good, only if you don't dig any deeper.
How can they pay for drugs?
It depends on circumstance. Someone having a couple cones of an evening to fail a drug test a couple days later is hardly the same as a junkie who receives a welfare payment and lives in a squat.

Blanket approaches like these hardly address the problem, but they do look good, don't they?

Great so you are in favor of the extortion of the taxpayer. Sorry, fuck that.
lol where did you dream that nonsense up?
2011-07-02 21:41:17
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6841|132 and Bush

Jaekus wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Jaekus wrote:


This ^
They sell the foodstamps (the ebt card) for money to buy drugs.

Resident Floridian here. Good idea.
So what is going to happen once they receive welfare? Will there be the option of going into rehab, pass the tests again and either receive benefits again and/or assistance to re-enter the workforce?
As a matter of fact yes.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-02 21:47:19
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5499|foggy bottom
lol that would be "reverse" racism
Tu Stultus Es
2011-07-02 22:07:28
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

Kmar wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Kmar wrote:


They sell the foodstamps (the ebt card) for money to buy drugs.

Resident Floridian here. Good idea.
So what is going to happen once they receive welfare? Will there be the option of going into rehab, pass the tests again and either receive benefits again and/or assistance to re-enter the workforce?
As a matter of fact yes.
Good to hear. The article didn't make any mention either way.
2011-07-02 22:51:49
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6708
I agree, instead of giving them their drug money for free, we should make them work for it.

Of course, stealing shit is the only work they are capable of doing so...
2011-07-02 23:57:47
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

I agree, instead of giving them their drug money for free, we should make them work for it.

Of course, stealing shit is the only work they are capable of doing so...
Are you referring to people with addictions or the casual user?
2011-07-03 00:12:33
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6841|132 and Bush

A lot of people are hooked on prescription pain killers. I think Florida is one of the top states for abuse. Doctors prescribe pain killers on a whim now-a-days. I'm sure the pharmaceutical industry loves that.

It's not only Florida though. It's pretty rampant all over the country. Just look at the recent headlines. There's a lot of robberies/murders associated with trying to get a hold of pain pills.

This one was a horrible case. Four people were killed including a 17 year old girl.

NY Daily news wrote:

Detectives zeroed in on Laffer because he was a repeat painkiller customer, owned a .45-caliber pistol and looked just like the weaselly-faced suspect caught on tape leaving the bloody crime scene.

The victims put up no resistance and were shot methodically at close range.

Then Laffer allegedly filled a knapsack with canisters of 10,000 hydrocodone pills, a component of the painkiller Vicodin, which has become a scourge of the streets.
Addicts putting pharmacies under siege

CNN wrote:

Purdue Pharma and law enforcement agencies, listed nearly 2,000 robberies nationwide in the seven years the group has kept track of the holdups.

Pharmacies voluntarily report the robberies to RXPatrol, so the true number of crimes is probably much higher, said Capt. Rich Conklin of the Stamford, New Jersey, Police Department, who advises drugstores on how to deal with the robberies.

Nationwide, the majority of drugstore robbers are white males who are in their 20s and hooked on painkillers, Conklin said.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-03 00:28:30
Mutantbear
Semi Constructive Criticism
+1,431|6205|London, England

What a sad joke
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ https://i.imgur.com/Xj4f2.png
2011-07-03 00:43:25
Wreckognize
Member
+294|6725
I'm only ok with this if alcohol is included in the screening.
2011-07-03 01:25:03
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

Kmar wrote:

A lot of people are hooked on prescription pain killers. I think Florida is one of the top states for abuse. Doctors prescribe pain killers on a whim now-a-days. I'm sure the pharmaceutical industry loves that.

It's not only Florida though. It's pretty rampant all over the country. Just look at the recent headlines. There's a lot of robberies/murders associated with trying to get a hold of pain pills.

This one was a horrible case. Four people were killed including a 17 year old girl.

NY Daily news wrote:

Detectives zeroed in on Laffer because he was a repeat painkiller customer, owned a .45-caliber pistol and looked just like the weaselly-faced suspect caught on tape leaving the bloody crime scene.

The victims put up no resistance and were shot methodically at close range.

Then Laffer allegedly filled a knapsack with canisters of 10,000 hydrocodone pills, a component of the painkiller Vicodin, which has become a scourge of the streets.
Addicts putting pharmacies under siege

CNN wrote:

Purdue Pharma and law enforcement agencies, listed nearly 2,000 robberies nationwide in the seven years the group has kept track of the holdups.

Pharmacies voluntarily report the robberies to RXPatrol, so the true number of crimes is probably much higher, said Capt. Rich Conklin of the Stamford, New Jersey, Police Department, who advises drugstores on how to deal with the robberies.

Nationwide, the majority of drugstore robbers are white males who are in their 20s and hooked on painkillers, Conklin said.
Shhh, we're not allowed to talk about middle class whites leeching off welfare and abusing drugs.
Fuck Israel
2011-07-03 01:35:58
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6841|132 and Bush

I knew someone would go there. Tis why I made it a point to include that little diddy. .. although it doesn't mention financial class. Prescription pain pill abuse spans all classes.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-03 03:17:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

How can they pay for rehab if they are on welfare?

All that will happen in a great many cases is people will turn to crime, get caught and their imprisonment will cost the taxpayer 5-10 times what it was to have them on welfare. And the idea is to save tax dollars?

On the surface the sound byte sounds good, only if you don't dig any deeper.
How can they pay for drugs?
It depends on circumstance. Someone having a couple cones of an evening to fail a drug test a couple days later is hardly the same as a junkie who receives a welfare payment and lives in a squat.

Blanket approaches like these hardly address the problem, but they do look good, don't they?

Great so you are in favor of the extortion of the taxpayer. Sorry, fuck that.
lol where did you dream that nonsense up?
We are talking about people on welfare, where are they getting the money to buy drugs and if they actually need rehab, then we are talking about junkies aren't we?


look up extortion, then re-read your support of the idea that we should pay them anyway so they don't turn to crime instead.
2011-07-03 03:32:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Wreckognize wrote:

I'm only ok with this if alcohol is included in the screening.
well, that will only be good if they show up drunk. wouldn't mean anything if they can stay drunk all the way up until "check day", then go draw a check.
2011-07-03 03:38:38
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

How can they pay for drugs?
It depends on circumstance. Someone having a couple cones of an evening to fail a drug test a couple days later is hardly the same as a junkie who receives a welfare payment and lives in a squat.

Blanket approaches like these hardly address the problem, but they do look good, don't they?

Great so you are in favor of the extortion of the taxpayer. Sorry, fuck that.
lol where did you dream that nonsense up?
We are talking about people on welfare, where are they getting the money to buy drugs and if they actually need rehab, then we are talking about junkies aren't we?
It's not so cut and dried when labelling people who use drugs. It's like saying anyone who's caught out drink driving must be an alcoholic of the worst kind. But I actually support the notion of pressuring people to not take drugs whilst receiving welfare. The reality is it does happen and turfing them onto the street only compounds societal problems further, and at greater cost to the tax payer. A system where rehab is introduced on a positive test is akin to a drink driver going on some alcohol education course. Those that need it might just not slip through the cracks, and those who don't should find it enough a deterent not to do it again.

look up extortion, then re-read your support of the idea that we should pay them anyway so they don't turn to crime instead.
Where did you get the notion I said they should be paid anyway? I was merely asking questions of another poster, but no, can't have that around you

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-03 03:43:00)

2011-07-03 03:48:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

How can they pay for drugs?
It depends on circumstance. Someone having a couple cones of an evening to fail a drug test a couple days later is hardly the same as a junkie who receives a welfare payment and lives in a squat.

Blanket approaches like these hardly address the problem, but they do look good, don't they?


lol where did you dream that nonsense up?
We are talking about people on welfare, where are they getting the money to buy drugs and if they actually need rehab, then we are talking about junkies aren't we?
It's not so cut and dried when labelling people who use drugs. It's like saying anyone who's caught out drink driving must be an alcoholic of the worst kind. But I actually support the notion of pressuring people to not take drugs whilst receiving welfare. The reality is it does happen and turfing them onto the street only compounds societal problems further, and at greater cost to the tax payer. A system where rehab is introduced on a positive test is akin to a drink driver going on some alcohol education course. Those that need it might just not slip through the cracks, and those who don't should find it enough a deterent not to do it again.

look up extortion, then re-read your support of the idea that we should pay them anyway so they don't turn to crime instead.
Where did you get the notion I said they should be paid anyway? I was merely asking questions of another poster, but no, can't have that around you
I took your question as ensuring drug abusers on welfare get the help they need in order to draw a check, at the taxpayers expense. That is something I do not support because it is not a sincere attempt at cleaning up, rather a way to temporarily solve their issues with "check day".
2011-07-03 03:56:26
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:


We are talking about people on welfare, where are they getting the money to buy drugs and if they actually need rehab, then we are talking about junkies aren't we?
It's not so cut and dried when labelling people who use drugs. It's like saying anyone who's caught out drink driving must be an alcoholic of the worst kind. But I actually support the notion of pressuring people to not take drugs whilst receiving welfare. The reality is it does happen and turfing them onto the street only compounds societal problems further, and at greater cost to the tax payer. A system where rehab is introduced on a positive test is akin to a drink driver going on some alcohol education course. Those that need it might just not slip through the cracks, and those who don't should find it enough a deterent not to do it again.

look up extortion, then re-read your support of the idea that we should pay them anyway so they don't turn to crime instead.
Where did you get the notion I said they should be paid anyway? I was merely asking questions of another poster, but no, can't have that around you
I took your question as ensuring drug abusers on welfare get the help they need in order to draw a check, at the taxpayers expense. That is something I do not support because it is not a sincere attempt at cleaning up, rather a way to temporarily solve their issues with "check day".
My question was asking what happens to someone who fails a test, and if there are measures to help them get off drugs and into the workforce, rather than mere cessation of their benefits. Which only steers them to become part of a different system - the judicial one.
Which it was answered with "yes".
2011-07-03 04:23:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

We are talking about people on welfare, where are they getting the money to buy drugs and if they actually need rehab, then we are talking about junkies aren't we?
It's not so cut and dried when labelling people who use drugs. It's like saying anyone who's caught out drink driving must be an alcoholic of the worst kind. But I actually support the notion of pressuring people to not take drugs whilst receiving welfare. The reality is it does happen and turfing them onto the street only compounds societal problems further, and at greater cost to the tax payer. A system where rehab is introduced on a positive test is akin to a drink driver going on some alcohol education course. Those that need it might just not slip through the cracks, and those who don't should find it enough a deterent not to do it again.


Where did you get the notion I said they should be paid anyway? I was merely asking questions of another poster, but no, can't have that around you
I took your question as ensuring drug abusers on welfare get the help they need in order to draw a check, at the taxpayers expense. That is something I do not support because it is not a sincere attempt at cleaning up, rather a way to temporarily solve their issues with "check day".
My question was asking what happens to someone who fails a test, and if there are measures to help them get off drugs and into the workforce, rather than mere cessation of their benefits. Which only steers them to become part of a different system - the judicial one.
Which it was answered with "yes".
Why would your concern for them go beyond their concern for themselves? So what if they wind up in the judicial system, plenty of workers in the industry that need a job as well. You act as if, it is such a CHALLENGE in life to stay off of drugs and be a productive member of society.  NO tax payer money should be spent on them if they are on drugs not for rehab or for welfare. Get clean first on your own accord, then come back and see us.
2011-07-03 04:33:17
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX
I don't see the problem, if losers want to sit on their asses in poverty that frees up a job for someone better motivated.
Isn't it worthwhile to keep imbeciles out of the workforce?

They'll overdose or die of hepatitis soon enough.
So long as they live in the ghetto you don't have to look a them if you don't want to, and its not like they really cost all that much.

Now.

Old people leaching of the system and demanding the state pay for exorbitantly expensive drugs to prolong their worthless live by a few months is where tax dollars really go.
Not only that the taxpayer has to pay for the tests to determine which drugs they need, its a double whammy.

Worst of all, the miserable bastards vote and are organised about it.
Fuck Israel
2011-07-03 04:40:02
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

I took your question as ensuring drug abusers on welfare get the help they need in order to draw a check, at the taxpayers expense. That is something I do not support because it is not a sincere attempt at cleaning up, rather a way to temporarily solve their issues with "check day".
My question was asking what happens to someone who fails a test, and if there are measures to help them get off drugs and into the workforce, rather than mere cessation of their benefits. Which only steers them to become part of a different system - the judicial one.
Which it was answered with "yes".
Why would your concern for them go beyond their concern for themselves? So what if they wind up in the judicial system, plenty of workers in the industry that need a job as well. You act as if, it is such a CHALLENGE in life to stay off of drugs and be a productive member of society.  NO tax payer money should be spent on them if they are on drugs not for rehab or for welfare. Get clean first on your own accord, then come back and see us.
If the systems are in place is it not better for society to turn someone into a productive member than merely another statistic? According to you, it is not.

Indeed, by your own argument there are plenty of people who get jobs in the welfare system too. Difference is per capita it costs the tax payer less money and has a more productive outcome. This isn't about babying people, this is showing them clear cut options with consequences they have to live with as a result of their actions. With the right support they can do it themselves, for themselves, but deterents must be put into place as a result, a bit of "tough love" for want of a better term. But seeing as it's easier for you to take the moral high ground and remain ignorant, well, I don't care.

I merely asked questions to get facts. How do you make these assumptions of my purported actions? Actually, I don't want to know, more bullshit from you will ensue.
2011-07-03 04:55:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't see the problem, if losers want to sit on their asses in poverty that frees up a job for someone better motivated.
Isn't it worthwhile to keep imbeciles out of the workforce?

They'll overdose or die of hepatitis soon enough.
So long as they live in the ghetto you don't have to look a them if you don't want to, and its not like they really cost all that much.

Now.

Old people leaching of the system and demanding the state pay for exorbitantly expensive drugs to prolong their worthless live by a few months is where tax dollars really go.
Not only that the taxpayer has to pay for the tests to determine which drugs they need, its a double whammy.

Worst of all, the miserable bastards vote and are organised about it.
Stop trying to butter me up
2011-07-03 05:15:10
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

My question was asking what happens to someone who fails a test, and if there are measures to help them get off drugs and into the workforce, rather than mere cessation of their benefits. Which only steers them to become part of a different system - the judicial one.
Which it was answered with "yes".
Why would your concern for them go beyond their concern for themselves? So what if they wind up in the judicial system, plenty of workers in the industry that need a job as well. You act as if, it is such a CHALLENGE in life to stay off of drugs and be a productive member of society.  NO tax payer money should be spent on them if they are on drugs not for rehab or for welfare. Get clean first on your own accord, then come back and see us.
If the systems are in place is it not better for society to turn someone into a productive member than merely another statistic? According to you, it is not.

Indeed, by your own argument there are plenty of people who get jobs in the welfare system too. Difference is per capita it costs the tax payer less money and has a more productive outcome. This isn't about babying people, this is showing them clear cut options with consequences they have to live with as a result of their actions. With the right support they can do it themselves, for themselves, but deterents must be put into place as a result, a bit of "tough love" for want of a better term. But seeing as it's easier for you to take the moral high ground and remain ignorant, well, I don't care.

I merely asked questions to get facts. How do you make these assumptions of my purported actions? Actually, I don't want to know, more bullshit from you will ensue.
Society doesn't turn anyone into a statistic, people, by their own decisions do that.  If you do not want to be a stat, then make better decisions for yourself. First thing you have to do is stop pretending like people do not have choice but to do drugs.

If you think you have to "SHOW PEOPLE" a better way other than drugs, then it is babying people you are talking about.

How is this for a deterrent, if you decide to purposely fuck your life up, and go out of your way to do it, you are on your own?

It has nothing to do with morality, I am not judging the morality of anyone's decisions, in fact I say knock yourself out. not wanting to get involved or spend my money dragging your sorry ass through society bogging me down in the process has nothing to do with morality. It is, like a drug addict, a choice.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-03 05:22:45)

2011-07-03 05:36:17
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6841|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't see the problem, if losers want to sit on their asses in poverty that frees up a job for someone better motivated.
Isn't it worthwhile to keep imbeciles out of the workforce?

They'll overdose or die of hepatitis soon enough.
So long as they live in the ghetto you don't have to look a them if you don't want to, and its not like they really cost all that much.

Now.

Old people leaching of the system and demanding the state pay for exorbitantly expensive drugs to prolong their worthless live by a few months is where tax dollars really go.
Not only that the taxpayer has to pay for the tests to determine which drugs they need, its a double whammy.

Worst of all, the miserable bastards vote and are organised about it.
Old people pay into social security and Medicare their whole life.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard