re: Arkansas Bill would make welfare drug testing permanent

All for it. I get drug tested only to be taxed for welfare, they should be too....

Are they testing only poor people or everyone who gets government assistance.

If the bill passes look for crime to go up. 3000 people that clould potentially get their paycheck cut will turn to other means to pay for their drugs.

People use these cards and sell them for cash to purchase drugs.

quote:

---

support that, too, but I would also require mandatory birth control as a prerequisite for any kind of welfare. I'd sincerely like to see our government pay people to get sterilized. We could wipe out poverty in one generation.

---

It's amazing how people who supposedly want a smaller, hands off government have no problems letting the government dictate what people do with their bodies.

quote:

---

nobody suffers.

---

You LOL but you don't say why. Who suffers?

Thanks for engaging me on this topic.

quote:

---

Didn't think I needed to because it is fairly obvious.

---

Sorry, it's still not obvious to me that anyone would suffer from being sterilized. Are you referring to the possibility that a drug addict might get sterilized and then regret the decision after he has "turned his life around?"

quote:

---

I don't think giving a drug addict, in a messed up state of mind, the option to sterilize themselves to get some quick cash is even close to a good idea. Maybe there could be some reason to that argument if you didn't have examples of people turning their life around.

---

It's economics. Social economics, if you will. Even social engineering, some might say.

If millions, maybe billions over the long term, of dollars are going to be pumped into a social program to end drug abuse, shouldn't the biggest effect for the money be the goal? If you have 100 addicts and manage to get 5 of them off drugs, is that cost effective? At what percentage could we say that there's a positive social return on the money invested?

The "War on Drugs" has been an unmitigated disaster based upon its overall effect, or lack thereof, and the incredible amount of money that's being spent. Drugs of all kinds are more prevalent now than when the "war" began.

So, both social and legal programs have failed. What's left? I think a program that allows people to opt out of life is the only effective solution. Give them what they want but don't pay them to breed. Rather, pay them not to breed.

quote:

---

You start to go down a slippery slope when you implement things like this.

---

The slope is slippery in any direction when you're dealing with a problem this serious. Coddling drug addicts hasn't worked. It has just encouraged more people to become addicts. Certainly, beating them over the head hasn't worked either. Their suppliers have just become amazingly adept at stealth deliveries.

What's the answer? Let's work with the addicts. Let them, at least the hard core ones, live in their self-induced comas in exchange for not producing offspring.

quote:

---

Sure, I'm always glad to discuss something that can continue in a civil manner.

---

Yeah, too many people just want to throw a quip or insult into the conversation. I've always wondered what they get from that act.

quote:

---

Yes, although you aren't forcing anyone to do anything. I don't like giving that option to people that feel they are in a desperate situation.

---

Right. No force. Personal decision. A personal decision that is at least as important as the decision to turn to drugs as a response to life. To me, a person who makes the decision to be sterilized in exchange for a cash payout is effectively countering his decision to become a junkie. One decision is destructive to society and the other could, if the person recovers, stand to be bad for the person's emotions. I think it's clear which is which.

We know that most people don't ever turn away from drugs after having partaken of them. Some few will but those that don't cause others, mostly their own kin including their children, to enter the lifestyle. The base expands, relentlessly. In Kentucky it's at an epidemic level.

quote:

---

don't know and I'm not going to pretend to but I still stand by the fact that I don't want to provide people with that option when they are in a bad place.

---

I like to look for solutions. I'm a devout moderate in a dichotomous, polarized left-right society and I see the left addressing the drug problem with social programs and the right are using punitive measures. Nothing is working. The base of drug users is growing because of failed social programs from the left, and abuses such as forfeiture laws are becoming common because of right wing efforts.

The answer is in the middle. It always is.

quote:

---

It is serious but I don't think it is serious enough to invoke the kinds of extremes you are suggesting.

---

Just because my proposal is outside the left-right dichotomy doesn't make it extreme. Extreme is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. I consider left wing and right wing proposals as extremes, for example.

quote:

---

Should we have an option for sterilization if someone has a low IQ and wants to make some money?

---

We all have IQs. Some are lower, some higher. Does that really factor into our personal decisions if we're functioning members of society, however? A person with a low IQ who runs a stop sign and hits a kid on a bike is no more quilty than someone with an IQ of 180, is he? So, is the low IQ person more likely to turn to drugs than is a high IQ individual? I don't think so.

The bottom line, to me, is that we need to try new efforts at resolving our national drug use issue. As Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result is the definition of insanity.

quote:

---

What drugs fall into this category that you are describing.

---

Meth, cocaine and heroin are the main culprits. There are others but they're less prevalent. I don't put marijuana in the same category as addictive drugs. I definitely think it should be legalized.

In fact, the best approach to drugs might be to legalize all of them. That would immediately take the very harmful criminal aspect out of play in society. Of course, meth, cocaine and heroin would still be addictive but a proactive approach would be to deny insurance, jobs and government assistance to people who choose to use them. That's already the approach anyway. The production and regulation of drugs would be a revenue bonanza for government.

Mexico wanted to do this several years ago because they saw the criminal element becoming large and dangerous. The U.S. pressured them and they backed off the idea. Look at them now! What a dangerous society they've become. Are we destined to follow suit in this country?

quote:

---

To a certain extend those individuals didn't really get a fair shot like some others.

---

Life isn't fair, of course, and that can create some very sad situations, especially when children are involved. That's why I'm so militant about abortion and sterilization. It's better to prevent the births of children into circumstances where they're certain to suffer and be subject to abuse. To me a society is sick when it's common knowledge that children will be born into theses circumstances and no action is taken to prevent it.

quote:

---

Right, nothing has worked yet but that doesn't mean something can't stem from other efforts made or that will continue to be made.

---

Well, I'll offer this: When a government program is born, it is nearly impossible to kill it or to even alter it. It's the nature of government to grow. That's why government, especially at the federal level is so bloated. Sometimes it can be replaced with a more efficient program but only a strong will on the part of legislators can accomplish that.

We're seeing just such a conundrum with the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Even with the strong desire of conservatives to kill it, there is much resistance from their Republican representatives because they know they can't just kill it. They want to replace it with something better but have nothing to offer. So they stall.

quote:

---

I think one of the issues here is that I don't see it as the epidemic level as you do, that probably has do with a lot of things. One of the reasons is most likely where we both are living.

---

Lexington is just 70 miles from the epicenter of the heroin epidemic in America, which is Cincinnati and its Northern Kentucky suburbs. Eastern Kentucky is just a few counties to the East. That region is also plagued with heroin and meth users. It's not uncommon to personally experience a drug-addled person in or near those regions. They are bold and are creative in their efforts to get you to give them money. Home invasions, robberies and burglaries are also common, even in rural areas.

So, yes, I'm sure we live in differently affected areas. We should probably say states because Kentucky is infested with drugs statewide. It's just worst in Northern and Eastern Kentucky.

When will your state be equally affected? I think soon because of the nature of the phenomenon. It's like a wildfire that's burning through our country's population. I just hope we can do something to stop it and not have to see it burn through the country with the same damage it's causing here.