The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

There is a groundswell of support for this. When I first heard about it, I was ecstatic. After all, as a State employee with a CDL (and a Class 1 vehicle assigned to me for transport to and from work) I am subject to random drug testing. NIDA 5 panel, includes painkillers. My overtime earnings are taxed at twice the normal rate. My stub shows that a good portion goes to those "less fortunate". I also lived for years in an area of New York where seemingly able-bodied people collected food stamps and HUD assistance, and had their utilities paid for, all while I was working two jobs. A few of these families had more than one car and were well heeled...and mostly stoned.
Should we enact laws that require random drug testing for welfare recipients?
Here are some links for your perusal.
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/ ... 80408.html
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/070423

I believe welfare recipients should be drug tested. If they are spending money on drugs and not groceries, well, I have a problem with that. What would keep them from selling it either? Selling drugs sells itself. Usually people who buy, especially ones that have no other job, will sell to make money to buy more drugs.

yes

YES

YES

YES

I believe they should.

Of course, I'm also one of the few who believe drugs should be legalized, but if you're on the government dime, you have no excuse for recreational drug use.

Most of the people who buy and sell drugs start out with nothing to lose, or at least feeling like they have nothing to lose. I believe it's no coincidence that the highest crime rates in my area all come from areas of government subsidized housing.

I believe that if you are on welfare, you certainly should sacrifice some of your freedom in exchange. If the government is supporting you, they should have a right to say what you do in "your" home.

Just like when you live with your parents..."If your gonna live under my roof, you'll live under my rules."

Yes, they should be drug-tested.

I also believe that drugs should be legalized. This could change a lot of things. Legalized drug use, insurance policies that don't support a "listed" drug. These people kill themselves off and stop being a burden on my tax dollar. I am an honest supporter of natural selection, and this is a good example of just that. If you're too stupid to stay away from what's bad for you, then you deserve the consequences, no one excluded.

See, I also see other benefits of drug legalization, besides natural selection.

1) The drugs would be safer to the consumer as they would be under the FDA. The would come with directions and dosage instructions lessening the likelihood of an overdose. They would be consistant, so you wouldn't have someone bying some weak heroin one day, and think they can take the same amount of the strong stuff.

2) Gang Violence would all but disappear. Most gang violence is over "turf" and "turf" is where you sell drugs.

3) It would become a source of revenue as opposed to an expense to the government as they could tax it like cigarettes, instead of dumping billions into fighting a losing battle.

4) They would be sold much like cigarettes and beer, in a controlled environment where ID must be presented to purchase. This means fewer dealers targeting middle school kids (as there would be no profit in it).

5) People with drug addictions would be treated like alcoholics, and families would be more open about getting them treatment without fear of getting them arrested.

But that's just my feeling on drug legalization. I would say people on welfare shouldn't be allowed alcohol, or cigarettes either. Nor should they be allowed to own or posses large flat panel TV's, or nice cars until they can stand on their own two feet. Apart from that, if they are on welfare, then all of their property should belong to the government until they can provide for themselves.

This would give them more incentive to do so. Again, using the parents metaphor. If mom and dad let you do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted for as long as you wanted, then you'd have little incentive to move out of their house.

Bob 0119 wrote:See, I also see other benefits of drug legalization, besides natural selection.

1) The drugs would be safer to the consumer as they would be under the FDA. The would come with directions and dosage instructions lessening the likelihood of an overdose. They would be consistant, so you wouldn't have someone bying some weak heroin one day, and think they can take the same amount of the strong stuff.

2) Gang Violence would all but disappear. Most gang violence is over "turf" and "turf" is where you sell drugs.

3) It would become a source of revenue as opposed to an expense to the government as they could tax it like cigarettes, instead of dumping billions into fighting a losing battle.

4) They would be sold much like cigarettes and beer, in a controlled environment where ID must be presented to purchase. This means fewer dealers targeting middle school kids (as there would be no profit in it).

5) People with drug addictions would be treated like alcoholics, and families would be more open about getting them treatment without fear of getting them arrested.

Sorry Bob, but that makes to much sense for our government to actually reverse the laws abolishing drugs already in place. The want to waste taxpayer money instead of increasing revenue for the Country.

If you ever watch COPS, most of the arrests made on the show are drug related. I am assuming Cops wouldn't have much to do if they didn't have someone to bust with drugs on their person.

Question: How can a Country declare war on its own people aka war on drugs?

Oh, I never said they would I simply stated the reason's they should.

The main reasons they won't are because people have been conditioned to believe that drugs are evil, and many still feel that they should be illegal. No senator or congressman is going to risk his seat on an issue that can easily get him mocked by the media as being "soft on crime."

Police departments have come to rely on all that extra budget money for "waging the war on drugs." Never mind all the cool stuff they get from drug seizures! Our local police administrative office has 6 46" flat panel LCD TVs, and the seargant will proudly tell you that they were drug seizures.

He'll even tell you that if you can't prove how you came up with the money to pay for it, it becomes fair game for the police department if they prove (i.e. convict because you couldn't afford a lawyer) that you made ANY money selling drugs.

The governemnt could afford to pay for all the things that it wants, but there is too much money to be had in "waging the war on drugs."

Until the people cry out to end it, there is no reason for congress to even discuss it!

For now, drugs will remain demonized by the media, and general public, and the government is happy to keep it that way!

Michael Phelps for our new spokesperson, Bob!!!

VetSkinsFan wrote:Michael Phelps for our new spokesperson, Bob!!!

The best part about all of this is that I'm not a drug user. I smoked pot when I was younger and didn't like it. I got all tired and paranoid and couldn't for the life of me stop watching Sally Jessie Raphael (if that gives you an idea as to how long ago I tried it).

I have given perfectly legitimate reasons for legalization for a substance I have no intrest in using myself. I think that's the biggest reason why more people don't cry out for legalization...they don't want people to think they are users, or hippies, or whatever.

I drink, but I drink responsibly. I don't go to work drunk. I don't party the night before I have to go to work. Why should I assume that a drug user wouldn't do the same? Sure, some probably will. There are people who have come to work drunk, but we don't criminalize alcohol.

As it stands now, the only place you'll ever hear about a "responsible drug user" is in high times magazine. To listen to the media, and the police forces (who have a vested intrest in keeping drugs illegal, by the way) there is no such thing.

Sorry; strayed off topic a bit.

Oh heck yea they should be tested!!!

Shooooooot, I can't smoke my lil bit of green and I'm not even on welfare. Not saying they all do it, but I for a fact know that people use cash for the drugs (or alcohol) and stamps for groceries, now how friggin ubsurd is that????

Oh, and for the truckers out there, keep up the great work that you all do!

Bob 0119 wrote:Oh, I never said they would I simply stated the reason's they should.

The main reasons they won't are because people have been conditioned to believe that drugs are evil, and many still feel that they should be illegal.

As someone who actually holds a license to prescribe medication (including controlled substances), I honestly, 100%, believe that not all drugs should be legalized. Some are truly horribly bad for you, either psychologically addicting, or physiologically addicting (or both). For example, I can't imagine making access to such addictive drugs like heroin will result in a decrease in addicted users...and heroin addiction is one nasty thing to get over, with a whole host of nasty side effects:

Addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease, characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, and by neurochemical and molecular changes in the brain. Heroin also produces profound degrees of tolerance and physical dependence, which are also powerful motivating factors for compulsive use and abuse. As with abusers of any addictive drug, heroin abusers gradually spend more and more time and energy obtaining and using the drug. Once they are addicted, the heroin abusers' primary purpose in life becomes seeking and using drugs. The drugs literally change their brains and their behavior.

Physical dependence develops with higher doses of the drug. With physical dependence, the body adapts to the presence of the drug and withdrawal symptoms occur if use is reduced abruptly. Withdrawal may occur within a few hours after the last time the drug is taken. Symptoms of withdrawal include restlessness, muscle and bone pain, insomnia, diarrhea, vomiting, cold flashes with goose bumps ("cold turkey"), and leg movements. Major withdrawal symptoms peak between 24 and 48 hours after the last dose of heroin and subside after about a week. However, some people have shown persistent withdrawal signs for many months.

Heroin, and many other drugs that are currently Schedule I substances, just aren't good for the human body.

That being said, marijuana is not one of those drugs. It's idiotic it's not legal...

As someone who actually holds a license to prescribe medication (including controlled substances), I honestly, 100%, believe that not all drugs should be legalized. Some are truly horribly bad for you, either psychologically addicting, or physiologically addicting (or both). For example, I can't imagine making access to such addictive drugs like heroin will result in a decrease in addicted users...and heroin addiction is one nasty thing to get over

As a long practicing psychiatric nurse, who has actually established several drug treatment programs, I would not disagree with your assessment of the disgusting attributes of substances, such as Heroin, Cocaine and its cohorts, Crystal Meth, and others. I would not dispute that they destroy lives...

However, nor would I dispute the same of Alcohol... the fact is, Alcohol is a drug that has far more cost to individuals and society than any of the above mentioned drugs. FAR MORE. Yet, it is legal. As a society, we have acknowledged that we cannot rid ourselves of it, nor should we attempt to through government enforced means. We tried it once, and failed, dismally.

The issue is not that they are horrible, and that their use is absolutely bad for you... it is that the Federal Government has no real right to prevent you from using them. The Government has no right to protect you from your own stupidity. As the ban on Alcohol was identified to be folly, so is this. You will not prevent it. You can only turn the victims of these chemicals into criminals by attempting to do so. You only drive them underground... you create criminal enterprises which thrive on the sadistic accumulation of pathetic customers... who must obtain cash to make their purchases... so, they burglarize, they mug, they steal, they shoplift, and they rob mom and pop stores.

These substances will be used. The rate will vary... at times higher, at times lower... You (and big government) cannot prevent it. Valuable resources are wasted in massive quantities in the vain and (incessantly) failing effort to do so.

Government has a place in regulating the distribution and quality of these substances. And, it can certainly benefit from taxing their sale. In the process, it will remove a major profit opportunity from the hands of true criminals.

-

I'm not saying heroin is harmless, but you have to wonder if some of the stigma of heroin that makes it so attractive is attributed to it's forbidden nature.

If it were made legal, we could warn people away from it in the same many that we are currently warning people about the hazards of cigarettes.

There are fewer people smoking today than there were even 5 years ago. That's due to more people quitting and fewer people taking up the habit.

Right now if people take heroin, they become addicted, and must continue to seek it through the same, or new illegal sources.

They are getting an unregulated substance, and in their rush to fulfil their high will pump anything into their veins.

This is a much greater risk than giving them access to a regulated formula that is consistant, and less likely to result in overdose.

It takes away the worry from familes of addicts about getting their loved one in trouble with the law by trying to help them.

And the reduction in innocent deaths due to gang related violence (stray bullets, etc.) would certainly offset the needs of a heroin addict who can seek, or recieve treatment for his addiction.

So....

What makes alcohol better than weed? Why is ok to be legal and the other not? If the "right" people could profit from weed, would it be legal?

Countertrey wrote:Government has a place in regulating the distribution and quality of these substances.

Yeah, because Government has done such a good job in regulating far less deadly substances.

Listen, I understand that you could profit from taxing legal drugs. But I honestly wonder how many people would be using heroin or meth, etc., if it was as easily accessible as alcohol, and how that would impact society. And yes, sure more people die due to alcohol related issues...but then again, it's far more readily accessible, and far more people use alcohol than heroin in the United States. So of COURSE there'd be more alcohol related sequlae. And, of course, alcohol (while not being good for you) is far less deadly to humans than heroin and other of the harder drugs.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:So....

What makes alcohol better than weed?

Social stigma and a strong lobbying presence in Washington?

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Government has a place in regulating the distribution and quality of these substances.

Yeah, because Government has done such a good job in regulating far less deadly substances.

Listen, I understand that you could profit from taxing legal drugs. But I honestly wonder how many people would be using heroin or meth, etc., if it was as easily accessible as alcohol, and how that would impact society. And yes, sure more people die due to alcohol related issues...but then again, it's far more readily accessible, and far more people use alcohol than heroin in the United States. So of COURSE there'd be more alcohol related sequlae. And, of course, alcohol (while not being good for you) is far less deadly to humans than heroin and other of the harder drugs.

First of all, it's not as if government is doing a fine job of preventing access to drugs, either...

However, you have entirely missed the point, which is, the Federal government... you, and those whom feel that government is obligated to save folks from their own stupidity... DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT. You may have the "law", but the "law" is wrong.



You may legislate against operating vehicles while impaired, but if I wish to fry my brain with crystal meth in the privacy of my own home, what gives you the right to prevent it??? Who decides what is acceptable, and what is not? You? Barrack? The tyrant, Pelosi? That weenie, Reed? The new Reichsprotektor, Napolitano?

Would you violate the right of a Neo Nazi to publicly proclaim his ignorant and hateful beliefs in public?

How is this different?

Then, there's this...

And, of course, alcohol (while not being good for you) is far less deadly to humans than heroin and other of the harder drugs.

Completely ignoring that FAR more inocent (non-using) people are killed by alcohol than by all other drugs combined... You cannot pretend those victims don't exist.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:So....

What makes alcohol better than weed? Why is ok to be legal and the other not?

Ask the police. They always come out in force to oppose legislation that would decriminalize pot.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:So....

What makes alcohol better than weed? Why is ok to be legal and the other not?

Ask the police. They always come out in force to oppose legislation that would decriminalize pot.

The need big screen tv's and nice SUV's for patrol vehicles...

Chris Luva Luva wrote:So....
What makes alcohol better than weed?

That's a whole 'nother poll, CLL.

(edited for smiley)

Countertrey wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Government has a place in regulating the distribution and quality of these substances.

Yeah, because Government has done such a good job in regulating far less deadly substances.

Listen, I understand that you could profit from taxing legal drugs. But I honestly wonder how many people would be using heroin or meth, etc., if it was as easily accessible as alcohol, and how that would impact society. And yes, sure more people die due to alcohol related issues...but then again, it's far more readily accessible, and far more people use alcohol than heroin in the United States. So of COURSE there'd be more alcohol related sequlae. And, of course, alcohol (while not being good for you) is far less deadly to humans than heroin and other of the harder drugs.

First of all, it's not as if government is doing a fine job of preventing access to drugs, either...

However, you have entirely missed the point, which is, the Federal government... you, and those whom feel that government is obligated to save folks from their own stupidity... DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT. You may have the "law", but the "law" is wrong.



You may legislate against operating vehicles while impaired, but if I wish to fry my brain with crystal meth in the privacy of my own home, what gives you the right to prevent it??? Who decides what is acceptable, and what is not? You? Barrack? The tyrant, Pelosi? That weenie, Reed? The new Reichsprotektor, Napolitano?

Would you violate the right of a Neo Nazi to publicly proclaim his ignorant and hateful beliefs in public?

How is this different?

Then, there's this...

And, of course, alcohol (while not being good for you) is far less deadly to humans than heroin and other of the harder drugs.

Completely ignoring that FAR more inocent (non-using) people are killed by alcohol than by all other drugs combined... You cannot pretend those victims don't exist.

One word:
Nicotine

Countertrey wrote:Completely ignoring that FAR more inocent (non-using) people are killed by alcohol than by all other drugs combined... You cannot pretend those victims don't exist.

CT, I'm not ignoring it at all. We know the data on alcohol related crashes. However, do you know the data related to drug related crashes, and then a per-user comparison? If so, I'd love to see it. If you don't have it, then you're purely speculating, and incorrectly conflating your opinion with fact.