D.T.W.A.

[Woodruff]

FYI, there is legislation aimed at making these tests a reality in 26 states. 26 different versions. I am seeing some better ones than FL has, a lot of great ideas out there.

I wish the reform was based on principle rather than cash-straped-ness.

It's funny you'd use the term "principle"...as if that means this is a case of standing up for something. What it's standing up for in the case of Florida, however, is a cashgrab by a Governor.

[thegreekdog]

the government gives me $1,000

Thank you. That means it's a subsidy and you should have to undergo drug testing in order to get it.

Not a subsidy - I already paid the money. The government is giving my money back to me.

[thegreekdog]

It may or may not be a refund, simply depending on how you set up your deductions. If you take enough deductions, you can owe several million in taxes and still get a refund or you can take so few (mostly if you are student) that you wind up paying, even if your tax is only $100.

Come on greekdog.. think about what I am saying.

No, think about what you're saying. I'm also not talking about deductions, which are completely different animals.

This can be even better illustrated by the EIC. You might (?) not be that familiar with this, dealing mainly with higher income people (?), but that credit is gained even if a person pays no taxes at all. All other (well.. better make that almost all, because there might be exceptions) credits are taken off your total tax bill.

I have done the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance ("VITA") program on a number of occasions so I've seen it. And your characterization is correct. There are, however, other refundable tax credits.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to my point (and our discussion is irrelevant to this thread).

Anyway - drug testing for welfare is stupid for a number of reasons.

[PLAYER57832]

So, that sounds pretty regressive, then, right? The only people that would matter to are people who don't pay much in taxes, who get less money than they would, yes? What are we talking about, again?

This is precisely why so many people hate all these tax credits. Credits almost always only come off from taxes you owe. Owe no taxes and you get no credit (with a slight exception for the EIC, perhaps other exceptions). MOST of these credits only benefit the wealthy. Further, most of the credits are such that no one but big corporations qualify. Child credits and the new savings credits are exceptions (though not the only ones). However, even the child credit benefits no one who makes very little. To get the savings credit, you not only have to be paying enough taxes to deduct it, but you have to actually be able to save the money from the start. Even so, most Americans DO qualify for those credits.

So, these are really a back-handed way that allows politicians to say "we have the HIGHEST corporate/wealthy tax rate of anywhere"... when the real truth is that few corporations or truly wealthy individuals actually pay anything close to that rate. The alternative minimum tax was, at one point "supposed to" (read: "politicians argued this was the reason they passed it" ) balance that out a bit by negating large numbers of tax credits. In truth, it is yet another gimmic, this one ensuring that those who are just successful enough to be doing pretty well, though not to be truly wealthy (I suspect greekdog fits here), do not get to take all those credits and deductions.

Oh, by-the-way, a lot of people are confused about the distinction between a deduction and a credit. A deduction allows you to take money off from your income. It generally amounts to a tax credit equal to your tax rate multiplied by the amount of the deduction. (If you can deduct $1000 and are in the 30% tax bracket, that is a $300 credit). If the deduction is enough to drop you down to the next tax rate, it can be a great deal more (this is one reason many moderately wealthy and middle class people donate heavily to charities, etc.) Credits, by contrast, come straight off the taxes.

There is more argument to favor some deductions, because it is, essentially saying "hey government, I don'[t have that money available.. why should I be taxed on it". A credit, by contrast is the government essentially saying "hey, because you spend money on worthy cause xyz, we are going to take that money straight off your taxes". Essentially, tax credits are a way for politicians to pay for causes, to designate part of our taxes toward specific things, without them being labeled "ear marks" or such.

So, yes, in a sense there is little difference between an EIC, a credit for solar energy conversion or welfare. They are all government allocations, money that comes out of tax money, for a specific purpose. The difference lies only in how the money is paid.

and, yes, both deductions and credits are fairly regressive.

[PLAYER57832]

... our discussion is irrelevant to this thread).

Agreed. I probably answered it better just above anyway, but this is getting well off topic, for another thread.

Anyway - drug testing for welfare is stupid for a number of reasons.

Agreed.

[thegreekdog]

I'm thinking about splitting this off into a separate discussion, but this will be the last time I address taxes generally in this thread. I just couldn't let this kind of stuff slide:

Owe no taxes and you get no credit (with a slight exception for the EIC, perhaps other exceptions).

The EIC is a supplement or subsidy to the "working power." It's an extremely relevant and powerful refundable tax credit.

MOST of these credits only benefit the wealthy. Further, most of the credits are such that no one but big corporations qualify. Child credits and the new savings credits are exceptions (though not the only ones). However, even the child credit benefits no one who makes very little. To get the savings credit, you not only have to be paying enough taxes to deduct it, but you have to actually be able to save the money from the start. Even so, most Americans DO qualify for those credits.

THESE... PEOPLE... ARE... GETTING... THEIR... OWN... MONEY... BACK!!! They already paid the money into the federal government! They are not getting someone else's tax money!

So, these are really a back-handed way that allows politicians to say "we have the HIGHEST corporate/wealthy tax rate of anywhere"... when the real truth is that few corporations or truly wealthy individuals actually pay anything close to that rate.

This is a complete and utter false statement. False. Utterly. Completely.

The alternative minimum tax was, at one point "supposed to" (read: "politicians argued this was the reason they passed it" ) balance that out a bit by negating large numbers of tax credits. In truth, it is yet another gimmic, this one ensuring that those who are just successful enough to be doing pretty well, though not to be truly wealthy (I suspect greekdog fits here), do not get to take all those credits and deductions.

AMT hurts all wealthy and borderline wealthy individuals. There is no way out of it. You lose most of your relevant deductions.

Essentially, tax credits are a way for politicians to pay for causes, to designate part of our taxes toward specific things, without them being labeled "ear marks" or such.

So are deductions... deductions and credits are similar. They both correspond to some actual expense incurred by the taxpayer. The difference is, as you've shown, how they affect tax due.

[MeDeFe]

THESE... PEOPLE... ARE... GETTING... THEIR... OWN... MONEY... BACK!!! They already paid the money into the federal government! They are not getting someone else's tax money!

That's irrelevant. They get money from the state, that's a subsidy unless they overpaid in the first place.

[Phatscotty]

Your statement rejecting the idea that a drug addict thinks. In order for your ideas to work, they would have to actually think. They don't and drugs numb the pain they do feel. More pain, at some point is more or less irrelevant. Or, simply moves them into more "depravity".. theft, prostitution, etc.

Not all drug addicts let their lives be completely destroyed by their drug addiction. Lots of drug addicts have jobs, are responsible people, who just happen to be addicted to drugs. You might even know some of them, you'd never think they are drug addicts. I've known some people who have kept a stable drug addiction (and I'm talking about hard drugs, not just cannabis) for years. They're sort of "in the closet" with their drug habit. They're afraid to seek help for their addiction, because it often means losing their job, possibly losing their children, etc.

and.......drug addicts never lose their jobs because of their addiction (Abusers NEVER call in sick cuz they got f'd up the night before, NEVER show up late either...), never let drugs make them do irresponsible things or make bad choices...

you got the cart in front of the horse on this one. Drug addiction leads to losing your job and making bad decisions. Either someone quits drugs or they go down in flames. There is no middle road here. Once someone is addicted, they will put their fix in front of things much more important than their job or responsibilities, they give up on life, commit suicide, leave family and children behind, live a life of depression, risk jail, commit crimes that harm people, I can go on and on.

To your overall point though, sure some people can balance drug use and their job and still be responsible, but only in the beginning. Addiction does not stay at the same level, it grows hungrier and hungrier, (deeper and deeper too!) and tolerance gets built up higher and higher and the money and time spent gets more and more.

[thegreekdog]

THESE... PEOPLE... ARE... GETTING... THEIR... OWN... MONEY... BACK!!! They already paid the money into the federal government! They are not getting someone else's tax money!

That's irrelevant. They get money from the state, that's a subsidy unless they overpaid in the first place.

Reported for trolling.

They are not getting money from the state. The state is getting money from them (too much) and then giving it back. They are overpaying in the first place... every time... unless it's a refundable credit.

[Phatscotty]

Perhaps I should explain myself for you to at least see where I am coming from.

I WORK WAY TOO F'N HARD for that money to have it handed over to a coke-head who sleeps all day and doesn't even try to get a job.

I'm doing my part. Why shouldn't they have to be responsible as well? Beyond that, why is my earnings and my tax level everyone elses business, but welfare abuse concerning drugs is hands off?

[thegreekdog]

Perhaps I should explain myself for you to at least see where I am coming from.

I WORK WAY TOO F'N HARD for that money to have it handed over to a coke-head who sleeps all day and doesn't even try to get a job.

I'm doing my part. Why shouldn't they have to be responsible as well? Beyond that, why is my earnings and my tax level everyone elses business, but welfare abuse concerning drugs is hands off?

The question is this, PS - do you want to pay more tax money to ensure that welfare only goes to those who don't abuse drugs? I don't. Thus, I'm against this measure. Don't ask yourself whether, philosophically, it's right that your tax money goes to drug users (and then to drug dealers who may use that money to kill people indiscriminately). It's a waste of time and energy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Perhaps I should explain myself for you to at least see where I am coming from.

I WORK WAY TOO F'N HARD for that money to have it handed over to a coke-head who sleeps all day and doesn't even try to get a job.

I'm doing my part. Why shouldn't they have to be responsible as well? Beyond that, why is my earnings and my tax level everyone elses business, but welfare abuse concerning drugs is hands off?

And why not drug test other recipients of government subsidies?


REPOST:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=225#p3162464



Nice try, Dodge King.

[john9blue]

THESE... PEOPLE... ARE... GETTING... THEIR... OWN... MONEY... BACK!!! They already paid the money into the federal government! They are not getting someone else's tax money!

That's irrelevant. They get money from the state, that's a subsidy unless they overpaid in the first place.

Reported for trolling.

but who will moderate the moderators themselves?

[Phatscotty]

Drug testing for welfare recipients discriminates against a people of a certain socioeconomic background because other recipients of "welfare" won't be drug tested.

The cost incurred by welfare recipients are partly subsidized by revenue raised through taxes, which in turn makes welfare recipients receivers of a government subsidy. In order to ensure that no particular socioeconomic category is discriminated against, then almost everyone* whose costs are subsidized by the government should also be drug tested. In effect, anyone who has received a "tax break" or "tax credit," which was NOT due to overpayment of taxes, must be drug tested because tax breaks and tax credits are essentially a form of a government subsidy.

This would supposedly ensure that recipients of government subsidies act responsibly (lolwut?).


*What special exceptions preclude recipients of government subsidies from this drug test?

In that case, there are already plenty of "BBS defined welfare" sectors who require drug tests. People who are on probation (see BBS definition of welfare) have to pee in a cup every month or 3 months or what have you. Oh, if they are caught, they go to jail. Or, we could go much more realistically, with certain sectors of government employment who do have to take a test at the interview, specifically people who drive cars and trucks. There aren't really that many like that tho...ya know

Your argument only slightly holds up when viewed strictly through a socio-economic lens. Unfortunately, the topic is not socio-economics.

Not to mention, your entire posts apparently lives in a world where if we test one person, we have to test everyone? That won't even be the case in this specific thread issue. They can't possibly test every recipient every month. It will be random or upon suspicion. You can slap my hand for assuming, but I would bet that someone who would be smart enough to implement this program would also have a plan to make sure they aren't requiring someone to piss in a cup or give a hair sample that comes up clean for 36 months straight....

You got it wrong. I didn't say, "Test every single person." You did, and ya "missed" the point, Dodge King.
You're still advocating a drug testing policy that discriminates against welfare recipients. Simply because we use a different word at face value, it does not change the fact that welfare recipients' costs are subsidized like other people's costs are subsidized.
One of your contentions is that since they receive government money, they should be drug tested, so that they would be incentivized to not do drugs, because you think that doing drugs would fix their problems. Why? Because it would make them more responsible/accountable.
I'm saying, "That's retarded. If that really was the case, then why not apply the same policy to anyone who receives government subsidies? --- Especially those who receive large amounts of it. According to your logic, if those guys did drugs, then drug testing would make them more accountable/responsible."
You say, "no no no, I'm not discriminating (or I won't admit it); 1) there's lots of sectors that do drug tests, 2) you're just using a socio-economic perspective, and 3) you want every single person to be tested; therefore, your argument is invalid."
EDIT: OH NOES! I did say, "everyone must be tested" but that's out of jest to make sure that no one does drugs, so that they can be responsible citizens according to Phatscotty! (What is a hyperbole? ... )

Does that mean I'm not dodge king then?

If you are saying my point is retarded, then I will ask you to extrapolate on how a drug addict is just as responsible and accountable as one who is not motivated to get high on a daily basis a few times a day, and for those who do not work and get free money.....all day everyday? That's my whole point, enabling the addict.....the money doesn't help these people. it hurts them.

If you want to get welfare, you have to qualify for it. Drugs disqualify. To an addict, get clean first (check into welfare rehab)....is that really too much to ask? What do you think about the enabling aspect?

nothing in this life is free, but giving someone an actual strand of "doll-hair" and then converting that hair into a 600$ check is still pretty close.

[natty dread]

Phatscotty... I wasn't even addressing you. There was no reason that you had to stroll in and showcase your ignorance to everyone. But since you insist on doing so...

Your statement rejecting the idea that a drug addict thinks. In order for your ideas to work, they would have to actually think. They don't and drugs numb the pain they do feel. More pain, at some point is more or less irrelevant. Or, simply moves them into more "depravity".. theft, prostitution, etc.

Not all drug addicts let their lives be completely destroyed by their drug addiction. Lots of drug addicts have jobs, are responsible people, who just happen to be addicted to drugs. You might even know some of them, you'd never think they are drug addicts. I've known some people who have kept a stable drug addiction (and I'm talking about hard drugs, not just cannabis) for years. They're sort of "in the closet" with their drug habit. They're afraid to seek help for their addiction, because it often means losing their job, possibly losing their children, etc.

and.......drug addicts never lose their jobs because of their addiction (Abusers NEVER call in sick cuz they got f'd up the night before, NEVER show up late either...), never let drugs make them do irresponsible things or make bad choices...

Way to strawman.

you got the cart in front of the horse on this one. Drug addiction leads to losing your job and making bad decisions. Either someone quits drugs or they go down in flames. There is no middle road here.

Ok, first of all, I can pretty confidently say that I have known more drug addicts than you have seen even on TV. I live in the poor part of the town, these things have been around me all my life. During the last 5 years I lost 3 very good friends who all died of drug overdoses - so I have no illusion of these things being harmless. On the other hand, I know way more than 3 people who lead perfectly normal lives, apart from being addicted to whatever substance. Some of them have jobs. Some of them have children. I also know some ex-addicts, most of whom quit as soon as they got kids in the equation.

So yeah, I can see how you'd like to pretend that it's a black-n-white issue... I can see how you'd love to believe all that stuff how you get hooked on the first try, how marijuana is a gateway drug, and how drugs will always destroy your life no matter what. After all, if you couldn't demonize drug users, you couldn't justify your campaign of discrimination.

Once someone is addicted, they will put their fix in front of things much more important than their job or responsibilities, they give up on life, commit suicide, leave family and children behind, live a life of depression, risk jail, commit crimes that harm people, I can go on and on.

Some of them do those things, yes. Some people also do those things without any drugs at all.

To your overall point though, sure some people can balance drug use and their job and still be responsible, but only in the beginning. Addiction does not stay at the same level, it grows hungrier and hungrier, (deeper and deeper too!) and tolerance gets built up higher and higher and the money and time spent gets more and more.

Yeah, you're obviously the expert.

Look, I've seen it first hand. I've seen both extremes: people who destroy themselves with drugs - and a lot of those people were good, smart, compassionate people who'd never hurt another soul, and I feel sad for those people every day because they couldn't find a better way to cope with life. I've also seen people keep their drug addiction in control for decades, while all the time having a job, raising children, etc. A lot depends on circumstances, personality, drug of choice, etc. But I've seen it.

Once again, Phatscotty, things aren't as clear-cut black-and-white as you'd like to believe. Drug addiction most definitely is not always like what you see in TV - in some cases it is, of course, but not always.

[BigBallinStalin]

Drug testing for welfare recipients discriminates against a people of a certain socioeconomic background because other recipients of "welfare" won't be drug tested.

The cost incurred by welfare recipients are partly subsidized by revenue raised through taxes, which in turn makes welfare recipients receivers of a government subsidy. In order to ensure that no particular socioeconomic category is discriminated against, then almost everyone* whose costs are subsidized by the government should also be drug tested. In effect, anyone who has received a "tax break" or "tax credit," which was NOT due to overpayment of taxes, must be drug tested because tax breaks and tax credits are essentially a form of a government subsidy.

This would supposedly ensure that recipients of government subsidies act responsibly (lolwut?).


*What special exceptions preclude recipients of government subsidies from this drug test?

In that case, there are already plenty of "BBS defined welfare" sectors who require drug tests. People who are on probation (see BBS definition of welfare) have to pee in a cup every month or 3 months or what have you. Oh, if they are caught, they go to jail. Or, we could go much more realistically, with certain sectors of government employment who do have to take a test at the interview, specifically people who drive cars and trucks. There aren't really that many like that tho...ya know

Your argument only slightly holds up when viewed strictly through a socio-economic lens. Unfortunately, the topic is not socio-economics.

Not to mention, your entire posts apparently lives in a world where if we test one person, we have to test everyone? That won't even be the case in this specific thread issue. They can't possibly test every recipient every month. It will be random or upon suspicion. You can slap my hand for assuming, but I would bet that someone who would be smart enough to implement this program would also have a plan to make sure they aren't requiring someone to piss in a cup or give a hair sample that comes up clean for 36 months straight....

You got it wrong. I didn't say, "Test every single person." You did, and ya "missed" the point, Dodge King.
You're still advocating a drug testing policy that discriminates against welfare recipients. Simply because we use a different word at face value, it does not change the fact that welfare recipients' costs are subsidized like other people's costs are subsidized.
One of your contentions is that since they receive government money, they should be drug tested, so that they would be incentivized to not do drugs, because you think that doing drugs would fix their problems. Why? Because it would make them more responsible/accountable.
I'm saying, "That's retarded. If that really was the case, then why not apply the same policy to anyone who receives government subsidies? --- Especially those who receive large amounts of it. According to your logic, if those guys did drugs, then drug testing would make them more accountable/responsible."
You say, "no no no, I'm not discriminating (or I won't admit it); 1) there's lots of sectors that do drug tests, 2) you're just using a socio-economic perspective, and 3) you want every single person to be tested; therefore, your argument is invalid."
EDIT: OH NOES! I did say, "everyone must be tested" but that's out of jest to make sure that no one does drugs, so that they can be responsible citizens according to Phatscotty! (What is a hyperbole? ... )

Does that mean I'm not dodge king then?

If you are saying my point is retarded, then I will ask you to extrapolate on how a drug addict is just as responsible and accountable as one who is not motivated to get high on a daily basis a few times a day, and for those who do not work and get free money.....all day everyday? That's my whole point, enabling the addict.....the money doesn't help these people. it hurts them.

If you want to get welfare, you have to qualify for it. Drugs disqualify. To an addict, get clean first (check into welfare rehab)....is that really too much to ask? What do you think about the enabling aspect?

nothing in this life is free, but giving someone an actual strand of "doll-hair" and then converting that hair into a 600$ check is still pretty close.

Great points, but why not apply them to larger groups who are subsidized by the government (and some of whom even receive MORE money than welfare recipients)?

[Phatscotty]

drugs are bad.

[natty dread]

That's my whole point, enabling the addict.....the money doesn't help these people. it hurts them.

Bullshit. That's just your justification for your agenda. You don't care about the addicts, you're just pissed because "Waah theys stealin my tax moneys and buying drugs!!"

If you want to get welfare, you have to qualify for it. Drugs disqualify. To an addict, get clean first (check into welfare rehab)....is that really too much to ask? What do you think about the enabling aspect?

Yeah, and if you're not able to get off drugs, then sucks to be you, cause you don't get any money and you'll have to live under the bridge. But hey, it doesn't concern you, so why should you care about the suffering of another human being...

Enabling aspect? That's a bullshit excuse and you know it. For the record, you can ask pretty much anyone who works with drug addicts, and they'll tell you that rehabilitation has a very low chance of working in the long term if the addict is not committed to it, ie. trying to force people to rehab is very rarely succesful.

[thegreekdog]

So natty, since you're taking the philosophical bent, let me ask you - Do you think it's okay that your tax dollars are subsidizing the purchase of drugs?

[Phatscotty]

Drug testing for welfare recipients discriminates against a people of a certain socioeconomic background because other recipients of "welfare" won't be drug tested.

The cost incurred by welfare recipients are partly subsidized by revenue raised through taxes, which in turn makes welfare recipients receivers of a government subsidy. In order to ensure that no particular socioeconomic category is discriminated against, then almost everyone* whose costs are subsidized by the government should also be drug tested. In effect, anyone who has received a "tax break" or "tax credit," which was NOT due to overpayment of taxes, must be drug tested because tax breaks and tax credits are essentially a form of a government subsidy.

This would supposedly ensure that recipients of government subsidies act responsibly (lolwut?).


*What special exceptions preclude recipients of government subsidies from this drug test?

In that case, there are already plenty of "BBS defined welfare" sectors who require drug tests. People who are on probation (see BBS definition of welfare) have to pee in a cup every month or 3 months or what have you. Oh, if they are caught, they go to jail. Or, we could go much more realistically, with certain sectors of government employment who do have to take a test at the interview, specifically people who drive cars and trucks. There aren't really that many like that tho...ya know

Your argument only slightly holds up when viewed strictly through a socio-economic lens. Unfortunately, the topic is not socio-economics.

Not to mention, your entire posts apparently lives in a world where if we test one person, we have to test everyone? That won't even be the case in this specific thread issue. They can't possibly test every recipient every month. It will be random or upon suspicion. You can slap my hand for assuming, but I would bet that someone who would be smart enough to implement this program would also have a plan to make sure they aren't requiring someone to piss in a cup or give a hair sample that comes up clean for 36 months straight....

You got it wrong. I didn't say, "Test every single person." You did, and ya "missed" the point, Dodge King.
You're still advocating a drug testing policy that discriminates against welfare recipients. Simply because we use a different word at face value, it does not change the fact that welfare recipients' costs are subsidized like other people's costs are subsidized.
One of your contentions is that since they receive government money, they should be drug tested, so that they would be incentivized to not do drugs, because you think that doing drugs would fix their problems. Why? Because it would make them more responsible/accountable.
I'm saying, "That's retarded. If that really was the case, then why not apply the same policy to anyone who receives government subsidies? --- Especially those who receive large amounts of it. According to your logic, if those guys did drugs, then drug testing would make them more accountable/responsible."
You say, "no no no, I'm not discriminating (or I won't admit it); 1) there's lots of sectors that do drug tests, 2) you're just using a socio-economic perspective, and 3) you want every single person to be tested; therefore, your argument is invalid."
EDIT: OH NOES! I did say, "everyone must be tested" but that's out of jest to make sure that no one does drugs, so that they can be responsible citizens according to Phatscotty! (What is a hyperbole? ... )

Does that mean I'm not dodge king then?

If you are saying my point is retarded, then I will ask you to extrapolate on how a drug addict is just as responsible and accountable as one who is not motivated to get high on a daily basis a few times a day, and for those who do not work and get free money.....all day everyday? That's my whole point, enabling the addict.....the money doesn't help these people. it hurts them.

If you want to get welfare, you have to qualify for it. Drugs disqualify. To an addict, get clean first (check into welfare rehab)....is that really too much to ask? What do you think about the enabling aspect?

nothing in this life is free, but giving someone an actual strand of "doll-hair" and then converting that hair into a 600$ check is still pretty close.

Great points, but why not apply them to larger groups who are subsidized by the government (and some of whom even receive MORE money than welfare recipients)?

because then we are getting into an area where the issue is no longer about making sure a specific program meant to aid people, actually aids people. This is mainly about drugs and their effects on the poor, combined with the reality of how "easy/public money" gets spent, along with the result of welfare checks actually enabling people to continue their drugs habits and abuse on a large scale. We aren't helping these people. I think testing will help some of these people, not to mention the king of diamonds I have been holding in my sleeve, which is "LESS PEOPLE WILL APPLY FOR WELFARE". It's working already

The best way to quit drugs is to go broke.
Tough Love

[Phatscotty]

That's my whole point, enabling the addict.....the money doesn't help these people. it hurts them.

Bullshit. That's just your justification for your agenda. You don't care about the addicts, you're just pissed because "Waah theys stealin my tax moneys and buying drugs!!"

Hey, I already heard you on page 1.

"Taxpayer, STFU"

[Woodruff]

Not all drug addicts let their lives be completely destroyed by their drug addiction. Lots of drug addicts have jobs, are responsible people, who just happen to be addicted to drugs. You might even know some of them, you'd never think they are drug addicts. I've known some people who have kept a stable drug addiction (and I'm talking about hard drugs, not just cannabis) for years. They're sort of "in the closet" with their drug habit. They're afraid to seek help for their addiction, because it often means losing their job, possibly losing their children, etc.

and.......drug addicts never lose their jobs because of their addiction (Abusers NEVER call in sick cuz they got f'd up the night before, NEVER show up late either...), never let drugs make them do irresponsible things or make bad choices...

Obesity does all of these things (for slightly different reasons), and the incidence of obesity among welfare recipients is FAR HIGHER than drug use, because unhealthy food is cheap food. But that's ok, because drug addiction goes against your morals. You're ok with people being obese.

you got the cart in front of the horse on this one. Drug addiction leads to losing your job and making bad decisions. Either someone quits drugs or they go down in flames. There is no middle road here. Once someone is addicted, they will put their fix in front of things much more important than their job or responsibilities, they give up on life, commit suicide, leave family and children behind, live a life of depression, risk jail, commit crimes that harm people, I can go on and on. To your overall point though, sure some people can balance drug use and their job and still be responsible, but only in the beginning. Addiction does not stay at the same level, it grows hungrier and hungrier, (deeper and deeper too!) and tolerance gets built up higher and higher and the money and time spent gets more and more.

[/quote]

Not necessarily, no. It seems very clear to me that you don't have much experience in this area. I've known several people whom I was very surprised to find out were pretty hard-core addicts because they had learned to hide it very well. They could control it to the point that they kept it out of their workplace. One was in the military, and it was only discovered then because they were selling in addition to using and they got caught distributing (I only even know about that case myself because I was the First Sergeant at the time).

What you're saying absolutely can be true and more often than not it is true. But there is a wide range of capabilities in there that you're ignoring completely.

[Phatscotty]

why did they need to hide it? It seems to be perfectly fine and normal......

speaking of, what happens when if you test positive for drugs in the military?

I'm not ignoring the possibilities at all, just focusing on one abusive reality.

[PLAYER57832]

Your statement rejecting the idea that a drug addict thinks. In order for your ideas to work, they would have to actually think. They don't and drugs numb the pain they do feel. More pain, at some point is more or less irrelevant. Or, simply moves them into more "depravity".. theft, prostitution, etc.

Not all drug addicts let their lives be completely destroyed by their drug addiction. Lots of drug addicts have jobs, are responsible people, who just happen to be addicted to drugs. You might even know some of them, you'd never think they are drug addicts. I've known some people who have kept a stable drug addiction (and I'm talking about hard drugs, not just cannabis) for years. They're sort of "in the closet" with their drug habit. They're afraid to seek help for their addiction, because it often means losing their job, possibly losing their children, etc.

and.......drug addicts never lose their jobs because of their addiction (Abusers NEVER call in sick cuz they got f'd up the night before, NEVER show up late either...), never let drugs make them do irresponsible things or make bad choices...

you got the cart in front of the horse on this one. Drug addiction leads to losing your job and making bad decisions. Either someone quits drugs or they go down in flames. There is no middle road here. Once someone is addicted, they will put their fix in front of things much more important than their job or responsibilities, they give up on life, commit suicide, leave family and children behind, live a life of depression, risk jail, commit crimes that harm people, I can go on and on.

To your overall point though, sure some people can balance drug use and their job and still be responsible, but only in the beginning. Addiction does not stay at the same level, it grows hungrier and hungrier, (deeper and deeper too!) and tolerance gets built up higher and higher and the money and time spent gets more and more.

No, you are going way off topic here. The topic is not "is drug abuse harmful". We ALL agree it is. The question is whether cutting welfare payments to addicts is a way to either save the tax payers money or move them off drugs. It is neither.

The rest of your blurb is utterly unneeded. No one is disagreeing. Except, we classify some things as drugs that probably are not addictive (marihuana is one) and some that are addictive are perfectly legal (alchohol and tobacco). And, except for a few drugs there is a small percentage that actually can persist without much fail.. or that are able to just get themselves off the drugs without going down that road you outlay.

[Woodruff]

drugs are bad.

Not any more than "guns are bad", no. And I don't believe guns are bad at all.