How could a law passed that if you pull positive for drugs you don't get any welfare?

[WNYresident]

So how can we have a law passed in Erie County that states if you are positive for drug use you can not get assistance?

Pot, cocaine, crack, meth, what ever... anything that isn't "doctor" prescribed? People can do anything they want with thier own money when they earn it but I feel our hard earn dollars shouldn't go towards the above "entertainment" type drugs.

Mandatory drug test before you recieve it and mandatory drug test on a 60 day cycle or something on that order?

What Erie County Legislator would argue... "No, if they want they can spend thier assistance on drugs it's ok".

[raoul duke]

Yes. Lets further criminalize and stigmatize substance abuse problems. It's worked so well already. :rolleyes:

What Erie County Legislator would argue... "No, if they want they can spend thier assistance on drugs it's ok".
I'm willing to wager that drug dealers don't take a Benefits Card. But it's the characterization that counts, right?

[MoreOfTheSame]

Yes. Lets further criminalize and stigmatize substance abuse problems. It's worked so well already. :rolleyes:


I'm willing to wager that drug dealers don't take a Benefits Card. But it's the characterization that counts, right?

Well, if you work "off the books" and spend your benefits on food/housing expenses/whatever then you have money for drugs/whatever. I am sure many of us have had experiences seeing folks in line at the grocery store in front of us with wads of cash but who still pay with benefits. Also, aren't there benefit programs that pay cash to recipients?

[MoreOfTheSame]

So how can we have a law passed in Erie County that states if you are positive for drug use you can not get assistance?

Pot, cocaine, crack, meth, what ever... anything that isn't "doctor" prescribed? People can do anything they want with thier own money when they earn it but I feel our hard earn dollars shouldn't go towards the above "entertainment" type drugs.

Mandatory drug test before you recieve it and mandatory drug test on a 60 day cycle or something on that order?

What Erie County Legislator would argue... "No, if they want they can spend thier assistance on drugs it's ok".

Excellent idea, however wouldn't something like that be required to come in at the federal level? Otherwise if one or two counties demanded it and it went against federal rules, wouldn't it be overturned?

[WNYresident]

Excellent idea, however wouldn't something like that be required to come in at the federal level? Otherwise if one or two counties demanded it and it went against federal rules, wouldn't it be overturned?

Maybe it's time to tell the people in power enough is enough.

Would you continue to hand your own money over to a drug addict? That's what your doing now.

Erie County can be the first county that will not hand money over to people on drugs. The federal Government has a war on drugs... you heard them talking about it all the time. Time time to ramp up the battle don't you think?

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Yes. Lets further criminalize and stigmatize substance abuse problems. It's worked so well already. :rolleyes:



Your reply is a problem.


I do not think asking for a system that prevents people from living off the public but deciding to do drugs with their time is a bad thing.

The concept of "rights" is funny as many people see it differently. I could care less if people want to buy junk food, drink their life away or pass the day using drugs. If they earned the money, let them take the risk of living a life that goes along with these choices.

However, if someone wants to have the public pay for their rent, put food on their table, pay for their medical and so on, then I think the public has a right to say how they should lead their life.

This is because the damage from eating bad and doing drugs cost the public multiple times. It cost the public in terms of deteriorated property values when you live around a concentrated population of these people, it cost in terms of crime prevention, it costs in terms of medical bills. It costs on both ends.

So I do not see why it calls for a :rolleyes: when people are tired of paying on both ends.

[Harlem World]

Yes. Lets further criminalize and stigmatize substance abuse problems. It's worked so well already. :rolleyes:


I'm willing to wager that drug dealers don't take a Benefits Card. But it's the characterization that counts, right?
Every drug dealer that I've arrested in 5 years as a NYC cop had a NYS Benefit card.
A lot of them lived in the projects, too.

[WNYresident]

So who would be the person in the erie county legislature that could start a new Erie County Law for us?

You pull positive all aid is immediately not delivered. Who would argue with it?

[raoul duke]

Every drug dealer that I've arrested in 5 years as a NYC cop had a NYS Benefit card.
A lot of them lived in the projects, too.
How many of them had a machine to process the card? (That's a somewhat irrelevant point, sorry.) The problem I have is that while this solution works to sooth our need to make sure the poor know they are a burden on society (a favorite past-time of the "middle class.") What does it do to actually help solve the problems causing poverty. Nothing.

Punishment, when dealing with substance abuse, almost never works. So it might feel good making sure the poor know they are on notice and we're watching and holding their benefits over their head in lieu of "clean living." It doesn't solve the problem. And unless you motive is to make the poor more miserable and despondent about their position in society, it's a dumb idea, imo. BTW, I know there is fraud and I know that a lot of people are just gaming the system. But that's not a solution. I dunno, for sure, what the solution is, but I'm sure the Orwellian approach ain't going to produce the results we, as a society would want.

[WNYresident]

Punishment, when dealing with substance abuse, almost never works.

We are not punishing anyone.

I frankly don't want my money pissed away on dope. How is that punishment?

You earn your money you can waste it on anything you want.

WHy are you even defending this? I work too hard to have someone take the money we give them and spend it on pot/crack or what ever.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

How many of them had a machine to process the card? (That's a somewhat irrelevant point, sorry.) The problem I have is that while this solution works to sooth our need to make sure the poor know they are a burden on society (a favorite past-time of the "middle class.") What does it do to actually help solve the problems causing poverty. Nothing.

Punishment, when dealing with substance abuse, almost never works. So it might feel good making sure the poor know they are on notice and we're watching and holding their benefits over their head in lieu of "clean living." It doesn't solve the problem. And unless you motive is to make the poor more miserable and despondent about their position in society, it's a dumb idea, imo. BTW, I know there is fraud and I know that a lot of people are just gaming the system. But that's not a solution. I dunno, for sure, what the solution is, but I'm sure the Orwellian approach ain't going to produce the results we, as a society would want.

Good points!

But something has to give. If it is broke, then shouldn't it cost as little as possible while it is broke?

No matter how less of a quality of a life being on public support is, it is a privilege.

[therising]

My first reaction is that, in principle I agree with this.

But, when you think about the consequences -- say a welfare recipient tests positive for heroin. So, you take away their welfare. Do you think they will just say "Hey I have no money, so I'll just stop doing heroin?" Or, will they now resort to purse snatching, and the like?

How about, if you test positive, you have to go into some sort of program? But, then again, those things are expensive. And, who's gonna pay for it?
So, maybe you send them to jail, cause that's cheaper than welfare - oh, no it's not.

If you're basing this purely on dollars and cents, you're gonna get nowhere.

[Harlem World]

My first reaction is that, in principle I agree with this.

But, when you think about the consequences -- say a welfare recipient tests positive for heroin. So, you take away their welfare. Do you think they will just say "Hey I have no money, so I'll just stop doing heroin?" Or, will they now resort to purse snatching, and the like?

How about, if you test positive, you have to go into some sort of program? But, then again, those things are expensive. And, who's gonna pay for it?
So, maybe you send them to jail, cause that's cheaper than welfare - oh, no it's not.

If you're basing this purely on dollars and cents, you're gonna get nowhere.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It's just job security and overtime $$$ for me.
I wish I had the answer, but you wouldn't believe the atrocius, vile behavior I see daily, all on our hard earned tax dollars.

[Sylvan]

How about instead of Welfare being distributed in currency and/or credit for transactions on the open market, those on Welfare choose from a list of supplies what they need for the month with a point system and they are responsible for picking up their package at a main distribution warhouse.

For those who need [private] delivery, they can choose "delivery" for a predeterminded amount of points, which would mean less supplies.

Once the rest of the world sees all the people in america wiating in lines for basic supplies, maybe the rest of the country as well as the welfare people would be embarrassed enough to do what it take to keep Americans off of Welfare.

Yeah, fat chance! The current system of plastic cards is a great way to help hide the truth.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

We are not punishing anyone.

I frankly don't want my money pissed away on dope. How is that punishment?

You earn your money you can waste it on anything you want.

WHy are you even defending this? I work too hard to have someone take the money we give them and spend it on pot/crack or what ever.

Well, you'd be punishing their children. Isn't welfare based on how many children are in the house? Same with food stamps?

[ChaneysGotaGun]

Chalk it up to the Feds and their pesky wiretaps.
Can't wait till the tapes are made public!

I'll bet a lot of disgraced Wall St. criminals are rejoicing.

http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/uploaded_images/bush_wiretap-782597.jpg


...sorry, wrong thread.

[Sylvan]

Well, you'd be punishing their children. Isn't welfare based on how many children are in the house? Same with food stamps?

Why should the public be responsible for children of parents who couldnt afford to have children in the first place. Would the public be punishing children if unfit parents were sterilized after the first child was born? I think not! And in just one or two generations you would have a society with more responsible people.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Why should the public be responsible for children of parents who couldnt afford to have children in the first place. Would the public be punishing children if unfit parents were sterilized after the first child was born? I think not! And in just one or two generations you would have a society with more responsible people.


What if criminals of a violent or pathological nature were given the option of being sterilized in exchange for prison time. Before the process, they could have eggs/sperm frozen. Noting forced...100% optional.

If at any time down the road they were wanted to have a child and could afford the process ON THEIR OWN, one would think it would be a safe bet they were in a position to afford a child and if willing to go through the process really WANT the child.

Seeing since 40% are born out of wedlock, one can assume that a lot of people are not interested in raising a child and all of the responsibilities that come with it.

[Sylvan]

What if criminals of a violent or pathological nature were given the option of being sterilized in exchange for prison time. Before the process, they could have eggs/sperm frozen. Noting forced...100% optional.

If at any time down the road they were wanted to have a child and could afford the process ON THEIR OWN, one would think it would be a safe bet they were in a position to afford a child and if willing to go through the process really WANT the child.

Seeing since 40% are born out of wedlock, one can assume that a lot of people are not interested in raising a child and all of the responsibilities that come with it.

Sounds fine to me for a start. I personally think euthanasia within 24-72 hours is appropriate for confessed and convicted murderers, rapists, and second offense robbers.

Perhaps sterilization could be made necessary to qualify for Welfare too.

[raoul duke]

Wow. Eugenics? This thread took a creepy turn.

[Sylvan]

Wow. Eugenics? This thread took a creepy turn.

:p ...yeah well if you had a disease would you rather treat the symptoms with temporary suppressors and continue to live with and possibly spread the disease to others, or simply Cure the Cause? Thats not creepy, thats rational and responsible.