Posted on 11/24/2005 2:15:00 PM PST by UnklGene
Why are you pinging the guy to a thread he posted himself?
The food stamp program and other welfare programs should go away as well.
In my perfect world, someone "down and out" should be able to go to a place where there would be work to be done, and a place to sleep and food provided. The work done should pay for the services provided.
This shouldn't be a nice place necessarily. The work shouldn't be fun (picking up garbage, whatever).
Such things used to exist, sometimes called "poor farms". The workers would be given a place to stay and food in return for work on the farm. This wasn't necessarily a nice existence, so people tended to work hard at avoiding them, but it was a way that people could exist without starving or freezing to death.
People shouldn't "like" whatever "safety net" we provide, so they have incentive to not need it. But decent people should provide such things, and I don't mind providing them (particularly if they were self sufficient on the labors of the recipients - I'm sure some labor unions and companies wouldn't like the competition, but that's just too bad)
Who said anyone here wants government health care?
The article says nothing of the sort. It does suggest that they may be indirectly boosting the income of "druggies" by not legalizing growing ... but that is if anything an argument FOR legalization.
Really? Like staying up too late, eating unhealthy foods, and not exercising?
Really? The article's author claims they have a problem, but doesn't quote a single Dutch official as saying so.
And how have the bans on those substances been working out?
In my perfect world, someone "down and out" should be able to go to a place where there would be work to be done, and a place to sleep and food provided. The work done should pay for the services provided.
Such things used to exist, sometimes called "poor farms".
The workers would be given a place to stay and food in return for work on the farm. This wasn't necessarily a nice existence, so people tended to work hard at avoiding them, but it was a way that people could exist without starving or freezing to death.
I remember them well; - most Counties in Minnesota had them, -- they were a combination of 'old folks home' & poor farm. The younger 'inmates' had to care for the old folks. -- And inmates they were.
There were no bums living on the streets. -- Indigents had a choice, the poor farm, jail, or moving on..
Maybe I am just showing my age....LOL....but I do have a problem with legalization. Maybe not so much with pot. But other drugs do seem to result in sociatal problems. Sure legalization may bring the cost down, etc, but having worked in my last job with a cliental that was 50% substance abusers I do not think the cost would ever be low enough for most of the users I have known to abandon their life on the edge lifestyle to get the money. But just let me say, i am enjoying our discourse on the subject. I think the civility is what marks the differance between FR and a great many oter places.
Right on. Having worked directly with the welfare to work programs in Alaska I have seen cases that were sucessfull enough to stun you. Never thought some people could do it. On the other hand I have also seen people that would "dance on the edge", just doing enough to remain on public assistance as long as they can without getting kicked out of programs for non-compliance. Many just never thought the state would really enforce a 5 year limit. Boy are they getting a wake up call. Gotta wonder that when push comes to shove what will be the percentage that are totally unreachable despite any efforts.
$86,400 a year tax free. Equivalent to about $130,000 "on the books" job here in the states give or take a little.
My personal experience with potheads is they are lazy paranoid liars and often steal. I will never hire a pothead, medical prescription or not. Do you? Alcohol drinkers on the other hand can sometimes hold a job.
If I've helped pay for public education I have a right to see a return on investment someday via taxes paid. Having publicly educated people smoke away their potential is harmful to the tax paying public and should stay a crime.
It wasn't the pot that caused it, imho. It was their nature. I have too many very well educated, erudite, productive friends that smoked the demon weed.
I have been in business for the last 30+ years, and have hired a couple thousand. I've fired a few, mainly drunks. My experience is different. It may be who you hang out with!
That may be your experience, but I don't see why we should take your experience over the results of the studies done.
Right... I should ignore my direct experience and instead believe in your "studies"....
Alcohol isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be. The .08 level we currently have is not based on sound science.
I'm a child of alcoholics. The damage done goes beyond whatever "sound scientific" studies you can quote.
Or crack. Or cocaine.
And how have the bans on those substances been working out?
You think the results would be better if crack & cocaine were legal?
Why the word "studies" is in scare quotes I do not know, and you have given me no reason to favor your personal experience over research involving several people.
I'm a child of alcoholics. The damage done goes beyond whatever "sound scientific" studies you can quote.
Relevance to DUI?
You think the results would be better if crack & cocaine were legal?
I don't know about Know Your Rights, but I do. The most significant result of prohibition is not to deter consumption, but to increase violent crime.
The drug alcohol results in societal problems ... but criminalization results in even more problems.
Sure legalization may bring the cost down, etc, but having worked in my last job with a cliental that was 50% substance abusers I do not think the cost would ever be low enough for most of the users I have known to abandon their life on the edge lifestyle to get the money.
Some people get pleasure from living on the edge. But since the addictive drug alcohol is legal, it's apparently cheap enough for most abusers to afford it without resorting to crime; there's no reason to expect qualitatively different results from legalizing other drugs.
We wouldn't be channeling inflated profits into criminal hands, or increasing incentives for users to rob ... sounds better to me.
From what I've seen, the debate in Holland is more about tweaking current regulations, rather than a reconsideration of the whole policy. I haven't seen evidence that a return to prohibition has much support.
The author sounds like a hack. Here's a sample of his work from 1997:
"If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.