Retired Cop Waves White Flag in War on Drugs

The Standard-Times (MA) ^ | 15 Jan 2003 | John Doherty

[EBUCK]

I think that if we are to have welfare then the same rules must apply as they do in employment. Race, Sex-Orientation etc..

Of course, similar to employment, taking drugs which inhibit your performance should be a no-no as they will certainly hinder a recipients chances of getting off welfare, which is the point after all.

[MrLeRoy]

Of course, similar to employment, taking drugs which inhibit your performance should be a no-no as they will certainly hinder a recipients chances of getting off welfare, which is the point after all.

Any such drug test that did not include alcohol would be a farce. I'm not sure what I think about welfare testing that does include alcohol; staying up too late also hinders a recipient's chances of getting off welfare, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of imposing curfews on recipients.

[thepitts]

It is past time to end the War on Americans, AKA The War on Drugs.

[semaj]

"...when we pour so much of our national resources into something for so long that shows no sign of decisive results, I think we need to get out of it, cut our losses, and go back to the drawing board. "

Exactly. One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over expecting to get a different result than the previous one. The government is not insane, so it would reason that the intent of the war on drugs is not to curtail drug use, but to infringe on our freedoms and liberties through ever-increasing penalties. Property confiscation, no-knock raids, accidental deaths and injuries, curfews, gun restrictions, etc, etc...

[EBUCK]

Here is my take on Welfare. People on welfare have entered into a contract with tax-payers. Our end of the deal, we pay for them and their dependants to live, their end of the deal, they do whatever (within reason) we tell them to do until they no longer need our support.

Dig ditches, cut grass, wash dishes at schools whatever. And just like employers, we reserve the right to drug test our employees on a random basis, or perhaps on a performance basis.

[Ken H]

In your oinion, is there such thing as a "collective victim," such as a community?

IMO, It's bogus.

The idea of a "collective victim" is one of the primary concepts used by liberals to justify all kinds of destructive and unconstitutional ideas.

Affirmative action and reparations depend on that concept, as do gun control laws and anti-smoking laws on private businesses, to name just a few.

If you're going to endorse the legitimacy of "collective victims" for the WOD, then you don't have much basis for opposing most of the liberal agenda.

[MrLeRoy]

their end of the deal, they do whatever (within reason) we tell them to do until they no longer need our support.

Are alcohol tests, or curfews, within reason?

And just like employers, we reserve the right to drug test our employees on a random basis

Including for alcohol? (Are employers allowed to do that---and if not, is it because alcohol is legal?)

[EBUCK]

Employers can test for whatever they want. If they want to test for nicotine you got a choice, quit smoking of find another job. Nothing anyone can say about it.

And yes, curfews, alchohol whatever "we" deem necessary to get them off our back. That should be the price of mooching off of us. Welfare recipients should be treated like teenaged children IMO. Or at least the way I was treated while growing up.

When I was doing well, taking care of my responsibilities, rules were lax, when doing not so well it got quite a bit tougher. I learned well that hard work and good ethics paid off while sloughing around usually ended up with me in the dog house and struggling to make up for my failure. Just like in real life unless real life is the current welfare system.

[MrLeRoy]

Employers can test for whatever they want. If they want to test for nicotine you got a choice, quit smoking of find another job. Nothing anyone can say about it.

Are you sure about that? (Not that I have any evidence to the contrary.)

And yes, curfews, alchohol whatever "we" deem necessary to get them off our back. That should be the price of mooching off of us. Welfare recipients should be treated like teenaged children IMO. Or at least the way I was treated while growing up.

Good point.

[Hacksaw]

Slow work day?

[MrLeRoy]

Slow work day?

Actually, for those of us with intact cerebral cortexes posting is quite a quick process, do-able on even the busiest day.

[EBUCK]

Yup, I'm sure. In past pre-employment drug screenings I have been tested for alchohol as well a sthe usual suspects.

My buddy, who ran a company car into a telphone pole, was tested for alchohol among others as well.

By entering into a contract with my employer I have consented to these searches. We should make welfare recipients do the same.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

Me, I fancy myself a pragmatist, and when we pour so much of our national resources into something for so long that shows no sign of decisive results, I think we need to get out of it, cut our losses, and go back to the drawing board.

Stop making sense.

[Hacksaw]

Actually, for those of us with intact cerebral cortexes posting is quite a quick process, do-able on even the busiest day.

But what about yourself? If you worked for me and I found out you spend your days posting drug threads, I'd fire your ass in a second.

So the fact remains that you abuse your employer's graces.

[MrLeRoy]

If you worked for me and I found out you spend your days posting drug threads, I'd fire your ass in a second.

I would never work for a buffoon like you.

So the fact remains that you abuse your employer's graces.

Now you're confusing your power-trip fantasies with facts? A little early to be hitting the Old Granddad, don't you think?

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

...or is a disengenuous poster with no interest in rational debate.

Move to the front of the class, FT.

[Dead Corpse]

The reason I had it at 99% is due to private charities helping people ala "teach a man to fish".

Not all current welfare programs are the governments doing.

100% of government funded welfare for certain.

[Dead Corpse]

Once it reaches viability beyond requiring a direct connection to the mother. As our medical science improves, so does the survivability rate of a fetus. Once it can survive, for the greater part, on its own... it should start to be considered as being an individual.

Whether this is four months, or nine.

As for advocating its own Rights, then the agreed upon age of majority is the current standard.

[EBUCK]

Once it reaches viability beyond requiring a direct connection to the mother.

Agreed.

[MrLeRoy]

Once it can survive, for the greater part, on its own... it should start to be considered as being an individual.

Whether this is four months, or nine.

Why is surviving on one's own a criterion for personhood? Are adults who need dialysis not persons?

As for advocating its own Rights, then the agreed upon age of majority is the current standard.

Children have a recognized right to not be killed from at least the time of birth.