Welfare reform in PA moving in the right direction, I hope. (Pittsburgh: crime rates, to buy)

[SuburbanPioneer]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

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.

No doubt. This is why I'd like to reduce the possibility of this happening. There are drunk drivers on the road everyday. It doesn't mean police should stop chasing them, although they will never catch them all.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

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.

That would be an ideal world, wouldn't it? This would even potentially eliminate the need for perpetual welfare support of those abusing illegal drugs. The sad reality is that nothing's ideal. We are already addressing the problem and spending plenty of money doing so. To reiterate your previous statement, no matter how much effort we put to prevent people from engaging in criminal activities, there will always be those, who will remain criminals.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

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.

This is slightly off topic, but the problem of concentrated poverty is being solved every day. My friends from bad, poor neighborhood graduate from high school, attend colleges, get grants and tuitions. Most of them move out of those neighborhoods and live good productive lives, have families. We already are a part of this solution by providing those who really want to get out of the poverty with tax money in form of grants, tuitions and scholarships. These people made a rare decision to escape the poverty. Do you know why such decisions are so rare? Because it is damn hard, and not in a financial way.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

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.

The purpose of this bill is not to prevent drug abuse. This is just a mere attempt to prevent people from abusing the system and using state funds to buy illegal drugs. The system is far from perfect.

[BrianTH]

By the way, I should probably explain why the bill as it stands is only constitutionally "questionable".

There is in fact a recognized exception for warrantless searches pursuant to a probation program, which in turn is an extension of the recognized exception for warrantless searches of prisoner cells, which is considered authorized as part of the sanctions following criminal conviction. As described, however, this bill isn't limited to people on probation, but also to people who have been convicted of drug-related felonies in that past five years but have served their time. It also isn't clearly related to a law enforcement purpose, since it is tied to this welfare issue.

So I'm not actually sure how a federal court would treat this law--although I am sure one would get a chance. And again, it seems to me that it is quite clear this law was designed with the Fourth Amendment caselaw in mind.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think it is clear you have no idea what "the system" looks like for most older kids. Conversely, not every parent who uses illegal drugs is exposing their children to a "gun filled life".

Again, there are laws on the books for abusive or negligent parents. Not all parents who use illegal drugs are abusive or negligent, and many kids would be worse off if taken from such parents and put in "the system".

There are no easy solutions. Not even massive state orphanages (although why someone would imagine that as an easy solution is beyond me).

Yeah, I see that they are doing great in school when and if they show up. You seem to have all the wrong answers. You don't seem to realize what it would do for any people to pick themselves up. The Irish did. Chinese did. Guess you just want the government to give just enough money to keep a population from rising up and becoming full of pride. Give them enough to keep them quiet. Seems you have no confidence in minorities and feel they are hopeless. I feel they will do quite well if they were faced with no assistance. One has to wonder if you are a bit racist in your view.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Faer

Growing up in "the system" generally IS the drug and gun filled life. Not many people lining up to take in minority teenagers.

Some are and some get adopted. Better some than none.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SuburbanPioneer

No doubt. This is why I'd like to reduce the possibility of this happening.

Again, you can only do that by addressing the drug abuse itself.

There are drunk drivers on the road everyday. It doesn't mean police should stop chasing them, although they will never catch them all.

That's not analogous. What would be analogous would be trying to stop people from ever being able to buy more alcohol to drink because of taxation. Which is impossible to do in limited measures, and would require something like Prohibition. Which is what we are already doing with illegal drugs (and not having much more luck).

This would even potentially eliminate the need for perpetual welfare support of those abusing illegal drugs.

I think you have it backwards. Cutting off social assistance to drug users AND their dependents is only likely to create more, not less, of this same problem in the future.

We are already addressing the problem and spending plenty of money doing so.

And wasting most of that money. Drug prohibitions don't really work, and are incredibly costly. Cutting down on the incidence of drug abuse would require a few things. First, better treatment for addiction, which could be funded with a fraction of the money we are wasting on prohibition. Second, a lot more prevention of drug addiction in the first place. That would require a host of measures, including more robust provision of medical services, better child welfare, and ultimately a reduction in concentrated poverty.

That is what is so backwards about this effort. If you are really concerned about drug abuse, you need to be doing more, not less, about concentrated poverty.

This is slightly off topic, but the problem of concentrated poverty is being solved every day.

We know we can do better, and we know how to do better. We also know it is possible to do worse.

The purpose of this bill is not to prevent drug abuse.

I agree with you there. Again, I don't think it actually has a real purpose. It is a cheap political stunt.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I agree with you there. Again, I don't think it actually has a real purpose. It is a cheap political stunt.

Stunt? It has some teeth to be considered a "stunt".

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Just an aside, but the law is constitutionally questionable as it is, and that would almost certainly step over the line. Not that lawmakers always care about what is constitutional, but it could explain the design of the program.

No doubt, although the Federal Supreme Court is unlikely to meet a Fourth Amendment challenge they would uphold, perhaps the PA Supreme Court would be more open to defending the state Constitution.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Seems you have no confidence in minorities and feel they are hopeless. I feel they will do quite well if they were faced with no assistance.

Again, you have demonstrated absolutely no ability to understand me or speak for me, and look foolish every time you try.

I have every confidence in African-Americans. I see no reason to believe they have any less potential to be productive and successful members of our society as anyone else. Frankly, I think race is just a made-up concept, and it has relevance only because people act like it does.

Which is precisely why I view it as a legitimate question why African-Americans have had a different experience in the United States than other "minorities". And I don't think you can ignore slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing racism when answering that question.

On the other hand, I don't think that is the full answer either. Recent decades have seen our society getting worse at dealing with concentrated poverty in general (with a brief exception in the mid-late 1990s). There are things we know could work to reduce concentrated poverty over time. Most of the things I would list don't take the form of cash transfers, and I would like to see the need for cash transfers decrease over time, which I believe is doable.

Generally, the ideas you promote would tend to perpetuate and indeed increase the amount of concentrated poverty in the United States. I think this would be bad, but you don't care. And that is why you can't understand or speak for me: I actually care about addressing these issues in ways we know could work, and you don't care, and there is no way for you to cross that gulf.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Stunt? It has some teeth to be considered a "stunt".

Some stunts hurt people.

[EveKendall]

It fascinates me that Americans get so upset by social welfare, which is a relatively small expense, but largely ignore the billions of dollars spent on corporate welfare.