|

05-07-2009, 06:32 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SC
2,669 posts, read 1,311,285 times
Reputation: 781
|
|
It depends. Normally I would say smoking anything for that matter would be worse.. In my state, we have an 'education lottery' so all revenue from lotto tickets goes to paying for someone's college..
I like the idea of having people on SSI or welfare submitting to random drug tests. Employers do the same thing, so there is virtually no chance of them getting a job if they test positive for drugs.
And I know, the next argument will be, why should anyone care about drug tests before taking a job, and my only response is:
1987 Maryland train collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|

05-07-2009, 06:45 PM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Charleston, WV
3,075 posts, read 1,699,598 times
Reputation: 691
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
Poor people should neither be playing the lottery nor be smoking pot. If I were running things, we would have 2 laws like this:
LAW 1: Any person who recieves and soley relies upon welfare, SSI or other government programs to live shall forfiet any winnings in any public or private lottery or other game of chance and be prohibited from playing in such game.
LAW 2: Any persons fitting the description in Law 1 shall also be subjected to random urine, hair or blood test for usage of any drug not prescribed, any illegal drug or any tobacco usage and, if found, be given one warning and then removed from any public assistance program and banned for 5 years.
|
I agree with you.
Will never fly though, the uber-liberals would go wild. They have no problem telling tax-paying Average Joe that you can't smoke, have to wear a seatbelt, etc. because it's for the best of the greater society.
However, I don't see them telling those who live off the wages of the tax-paying average Joe how they have to spend that tax-payer money they receive or require mandatory drug testing. Figure they wouldn't see that as for the best of the greater society.
Sigh.
BTW - I Have NO problem helping out someone down on their luck. My impression was that you were referring to habitual refuse to work folks.
|
|

05-07-2009, 06:56 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas
6,391 posts, read 1,918,079 times
Reputation: 1112
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetJockey
My boyfriend wanted to say something, but there were children around so I shushed him
We were a couple spots down from her and she did own a new Ford Fusion with rims, too....
|
I don't think I would have been able to resist.
|
|

05-07-2009, 06:59 PM
|
|
Devout Atheist Humanist
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: MA
8,314 posts, read 5,928,702 times
Reputation: 4144
|
|
This thread reminds me of the NPR show This American Life broadcast that I listened to a year ago. I recommend listening to the podcast of it.
This American Life
Quote:
|
Prologue. Lottery Players.Ira visits the lottery stand in Chicago which sells more lottery tickets than any other: Hannah's Finer Food & Liquors. There he meets two men who want to get rich quick. Of course, one is trying to win the lottery by spending $3,000 to $4,000 a year on it, so it's hardly something for nothing. But still, he hopes. The other man is a model of hopefulness: he plays the lottery even though he thinks it's fixed and black people never win. That's how much we want to believe we can get something for nothing—even though we know we can't.
|
I don't think that poor people should smoke cigarettes, drink or play the lottery on a regular basis. And they shouldn't smoke pot or do drugs at all. They just can't afford it. And the odds of winning a lottery ticket are remote, and all those ticket purchases do add up.
|
|

05-07-2009, 07:00 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas
6,391 posts, read 1,918,079 times
Reputation: 1112
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
Poor people should neither be playing the lottery nor be smoking pot. If I were running things, we would have 2 laws like this:
LAW 1: Any person who recieves and soley relies upon welfare, SSI or other government programs to live shall forfiet any winnings in any public or private lottery or other game of chance and be prohibited from playing in such game.
LAW 2: Any persons fitting the description in Law 1 shall also be subjected to random urine, hair or blood test for usage of any drug not prescribed, any illegal drug or any tobacco usage and, if found, be given one warning and then removed from any public assistance program and banned for 5 years.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by vec101
I agree with you.
Will never fly though, the uber-liberals would go wild. They have no problem telling tax-paying Average Joe that you can't smoke, have to wear a seatbelt, etc. because it's for the best of the greater society.
However, I don't see them telling those who live off the wages of the tax-paying average Joe how they have to spend that tax-payer money they receive or require mandatory drug testing. Figure they wouldn't see that as for the best of the greater society.
Sigh.
BTW - I Have NO problem helping out someone down on their luck. My impression was that you were referring to habitual refuse to work folks.
|
I agree with both of you wholeheartedly.
Many of these people receive cash. How are we to know the cash is not being spent on drugs?
I've also heard of those receiving cash actually directly spending the money on cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc.
I'd personally add to your ideas and say that food stamps should only pay for healthy food.
|
|

05-07-2009, 07:00 PM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Charleston, WV
3,075 posts, read 1,699,598 times
Reputation: 691
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefinalsay
yeah right. the feds can't get their hands on tax dollars on something you can grow yourself. that's why it remains illegal. not enough money to be made from legalizing it.
|
It's not that outrageous of a possibility. There is a lot of political talk about it.
A bill has been introduced in CA (not sure what has become of it)
Ammiano introduces legistlation to legalize marijuana in California - 2/23/09 - San Francisco News - abc7news.com and other sources
(See below for article on what Barney Frank says regarding pot).
Even Businessweek had an article about the pros & cons.
Legalize Marijuana for Tax Revenue - BusinessWeek
Pot for medical use is making strides:
Quote:
Published April 30, 2009 @ 10:31AM PST
We just got word that the Rhode Island Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill, 35-2, that would establish “compassion centers” to provide medical marijuana to qualified patients, making access for the seriously ill far safer and more reliable. Legalize Marijuana - Ideas for Change in America
|
Barney Frank on pot - From last year:
Here is a study done in 2005:
About.com: http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html
|
|

05-07-2009, 07:08 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Elfin Forest
4,133 posts, read 1,448,875 times
Reputation: 1779
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
I agree with both of you wholeheartedly.
Many of these people receive cash. How are we to know the cash is not being spent on drugs?
I've also heard of those receiving cash actually directly spending the money on cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc.
I'd personally add to your ideas and say that food stamps should only pay for healthy food.
|
I don't know how it's done in Texas, but in CA you get a card that has EBT food and EBT cash. You get different amounts of money put into each of those accounts. EBT food can only be used on food stuffs, but EBT cash can be used on anything. It's ridiculous.
|
|

05-07-2009, 07:12 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Texas...and proud of it.
721 posts, read 208,582 times
Reputation: 150
|
|
|
Oh come on, we all know it's wide mouth beer bottles.
|
|

05-07-2009, 07:15 PM
|
|
Pro say
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
6,902 posts, read 1,504,898 times
Reputation: 755
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
I agree with both of you wholeheartedly.
Many of these people receive cash. How are we to know the cash is not being spent on drugs?
I've also heard of those receiving cash actually directly spending the money on cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc.
I'd personally add to your ideas and say that food stamps should only pay for healthy food.
|
My family was on welfare in 1959.
The feds used to drive by and drop off a block of cheese, bucket of peanut butter, flour and powdered milk.
I think this system was also designed to keep prices up for the farmers, rather than dumping food into the Mississippi River.
|
|

05-07-2009, 07:20 PM
|
|
Real Estate Agent
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Martinsville, NJ
2,704 posts, read 1,501,555 times
Reputation: 1251
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu
I don't think that poor people should smoke cigarettes, drink or play the lottery on a regular basis. And they shouldn't smoke pot or do drugs at all. They just can't afford it. And the odds of winning a lottery ticket are remote, and all those ticket purchases do add up.
|
I don't think that anyone should be able to tell poor people what they can or cannot buy, just because they are poor. But there ought to be absolutely no way that taxpayer money diverted to feed the poor can be used for anything other than the necessities of life.
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|