U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2011, 11:59 AM
 
2,972 posts, read 1,314,032 times
Reputation: 1547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl View Post
As I mentioned before, meth, coke, and heroin are out of the system within 48 hours however marijuana is not. So my question is, are we going to destroy families because a parent is smoking pot? Really?
Yes, we will in fact tear families apart with laws that make no real improvement in the efficient delivery of government services in order to score some cheap political points.

So, how much does it cost to implement a system like this? My thought is that it's probably more than the amount saved by kicking people off the welfare rolls.

Quote:
Until we start drug testing executives that receive public funding, this will just be another shot fired in class warfare.
Indeed. A broader question is why is it any of the governments business to dictate what a capable adult puts into his or her own body?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2011, 12:04 PM
 
3,449 posts, read 1,987,271 times
Reputation: 1909
Real welfare reform would be to deny all forms of welfare assistance after a set amount of time when a person makes no significant steps to get off of the system. Maybe when someone is actually concerned with where there next meal will come from they will be a bit more motivated to do something with their lives rather than 'hanging out' all day.

I am all for a safety net in our society when people find themselves down on their luck, but that net has to be temporary or else you get the crime/drug ridden public housing and such that you now see with the system now. (and no, I am not saying everyone on welfare is a criminal or drug addict).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Mexican War Streets
1,291 posts, read 828,396 times
Reputation: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKyank View Post
Real welfare reform would be to deny all forms of welfare assistance after a set amount of time when a person makes no significant steps to get off of the system. Maybe when someone is actually concerned with where there next meal will come from they will be a bit more motivated to do something with their lives rather than 'hanging out' all day.
Or maybe they'll starve or turn more quickly and readily to crime, imposing far greater costs on society.

It seems to me that all of the advocates of this kind of system fail to recognize the historic reality that these circumstances existed, they inflicted tremendous pain on innocents and the population at large demanded that their Government, as the only institution that could, take step to mitigate the suffering, thus the modern welfare state.


We need not hypothesize about what would be but rather merely remember what was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 12:19 PM
 
Location: suburbs
284 posts, read 184,309 times
Reputation: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View Post
A broader question is why is it any of the governments business to dictate what a capable adult puts into his or her own body?
Completely agree. A capable adult can put anything they want into their own body, so long as they don't use state funds to pay for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
948 posts, read 676,577 times
Reputation: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuburbanPioneer View Post
Completely agree. A capable adult can put anything they want into their own body, so long as they don't use state funds to pay for it.
The problem I have with that is that when you are intoxicated with any substance, chances are, other people are affected, not just the person choosing to become intoxicated. If you sit in your own home and do all the drugs you want, fine by me...but, if you are responsible for caring for another human being (a child) or if you step into society where MY well-being could possibly be affected by your choice of intoxication, that is a PROBLEM and that is exactly why there are restrictions as to what you're "allowed" to put in your own body. Alcohol? Drugs? ... you're not in a sober, rational state of mind. When you step on to the street, or get behind the wheel of a car, MY well-being is affected. I'll be damned if any drug-using individual is going to compromise my smart, wise choices in life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Mexican War Streets
1,291 posts, read 828,396 times
Reputation: 888
On the broader point, I wonder why the State Rep isn't advocating drug testing for all recipients of public assistance? Wouldn't that better accomplish his stated goals of de-funding drug dealers and reducing the welfare budget?

My concern is that this is yet another in a long line of rural politicians trying to deny government assistance to "undeserving", urban, "others" in the name of fiscal responsibility and limited government.

We know that the drug laws and enforcement are not universally applied and that there is bound to be a greater concentration of poor drug felons within cities than drug usage rates should suggest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 12:42 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 17,922,507 times
Reputation: 2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradjl2009 View Post
Not necessarily but it is in the best interest of the child to be removed from a house if they are headed by a single parent who is more or less a drug addict or an alcoholic.
I don't think that is true in all cases: people can be addicted to illegal drugs or alcohol but still be competent in various aspects of life. Conversely, removing children from their parents is really a very drastic remedy which often has very high costs for the child involved. Again, that can be the right thing to do in cases of parents who are abusive or negligent, but rather than assuming a parent who is addicted to drugs or alcohol is automatically abusive or negligent, I think you need to look at the actual facts of the case.

But in any event, that isn't really relevant to this particular discussion. This bill isn't limited to cases of single parents, and isn't limited to addicts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 12:47 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 17,922,507 times
Reputation: 2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by robrobrob View Post
I don't think that they are necessarily going after drug users for political gain unless of course you count reducing the budget political gain.
Again, does anyone have any idea how much this would actually save, if anything?

And yes, politicians do things all the time within the context of budget discussions that have no significant budgetary impact, but that they think will help them politically. So, for example, we get long discussions about things like NPR or Planned Parenthood, when the amount of money involved is actually trivial compared to the really big items.

Quote:
If you proceed on the premise that there are too many people receiving a hand out and you want to reduce this number quickly how would you do it? What group is on the chopping block?
Again, I simply reject that premise. It may not save significant money, and in fact may end up costing more money in the long run, and on top of that is likely to be bad policy. I see no reason to play along with such a game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Perry South, Pittsburgh, PA
1,437 posts, read 1,383,620 times
Reputation: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl View Post
As I mentioned before, meth, coke, and heroin are out of the system within 48 hours however marijuana is not. So my question is, are we going to destroy families because a parent is smoking pot? Really?
If you're getting government hand outs because you're too poor to take care of yourself, you shouldn't be wasting money on your dope habit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 12:57 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 17,922,507 times
Reputation: 2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuburbanPioneer View Post
It doesn't mean that we shouldn't start solving them. And this provision is a good start. Tax dollars can't be used to buy illegal drugs, support drug dealers. It will not solve everything, but it will make it harder to abuse the system.
Your tax dollars are undoubtedly being used to buy illegal drugs in all sorts of ways besides this. In fact, money is fungible, and pretty much everyone gets tax money spent for their benefit in one way or another. So basically every illegal drug users has a bit more disposable cash thanks to taxation.

So, it is impossible to stamp out this problem from this direction. If you really want to address this issue constructively, you need to be directly addressing the problem of people abusing illegal drugs, which will in turn de facto lower the amount of tax dollars being used to purchase illegal drugs.

Moreover, illegal drug abuse is not the only problem we should be addressing. Concentrated poverty is bad in itself, and perpetuates a lot of other problems as well. If you "win" by slightly reducing the amount of tax money being spent on illegal drugs, but in the process make the problem of concentrated poverty and the other associated problems worse, that is a net loss.

Again, there aren't simple solutions to these problems. Drug-testing welfare recipients is a symbolic act designed to score political points, but it isn't a good idea if you are really interested in addressing either the problem of drug abuse or the problem of concentrated poverty, or both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:54 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top