This sounds like a good idea

[Jim]

How about instead of not giving them a welfare check, you give them the opportunity to attend a rehab program. You figure if a parent who is recieving a welfare check and blowing it on drugs would be better served to clean up thier act then be completely cut off. What are the poor people going to do when their hand is forced? If you cut them off instead of helping them, and force them as far down as possible, will the outcome be better?

Or really, if we're talking about curbing government spending, how about we stop giving ridiculous government contracts to companies who lie and cheat and get away with it becuase of thier buddy status with the administration?

Taking a bottom up approach to fixing government spending might morally sound good, but the net savings of doing something like that (not to mention the impact on the poor) is miniscule compared to what we could do looking at the moral issues from the top.

While I'm on this... I bet 50% of the people that would be cut off would be for marijuana, think of all the money we could save by legalizing, regulating and taxing it... and eliminate the huge population in the prison system as well so that they could start contributing to the economy rather then draining it...

[SPANISH-RICE]

yeah but what happens when Tron down the street goes from slangin dime bags on the corner to having a legit multimillion dollar bigmarijuana company ? ill tell you what happens, another fubu

[Jim]

SPANISH-RICE;233084 wrote:
yeah but what happens when Tron down the street goes from slangin dime bags on the corner to having a legit multimillion dollar bigmarijuana company ? ill tell you what happens, another fubu

Regulation. If you're going to have tabacco and alcohol be legal you might as well. It's not like the tabacco and alcohol companies are saints....

[StangerBanger96]

Jim;233079 wrote:
How about instead of not giving them a welfare check, you give them the opportunity to attend a rehab program. You figure if a parent who is recieving a welfare check and blowing it on drugs would be better served to clean up thier act then be completely cut off. What are the poor people going to do when their hand is forced? If you cut them off instead of helping them, and force them as far down as possible, will the outcome be better?

Or really, if we're talking about curbing government spending, how about we stop giving ridiculous government contracts to companies who lie and cheat and get away with it becuase of thier buddy status with the administration?

Taking a bottom up approach to fixing government spending might morally sound good, but the net savings of doing something like that (not to mention the impact on the poor) is miniscule compared to what we could do looking at the moral issues from the top.

While I'm on this... I bet 50% of the people that would be cut off would be for marijuana, think of all the money we could save by legalizing, regulating and taxing it... and eliminate the huge population in the prison system as well so that they could start contributing to the economy rather then draining it...

Ding Ding Ding.

"Hard" drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. are all almost completely out of your system within 3 days MAX. All some druggy has to do is not feed his addiction for 3 days max, probably more like 1, and he can get his welfare check and be good to go. The only one that would really ever get caught is marijuana since that can stay in your system anywhere from 3 to 30+ days...as well as a few idiotic crackheads who forgot they had to quit for a bit prior to getting their check.

Also the legalization of marijuana would allow for the legalization of hemp which is one of the most "useful" plants in the world as far as industry is concerned (no I'm not talking about smoking it, hemp is the THC Free/Low THC version of marijuana).

[SPANISH-RICE]

but then how much money are we saving at the expense of paying the social workers and maintence/utilities for the rehab facilites across the country?

[Jim]

... the point is that urine tests for the poor to recieve welfare is not a solution that would net any sort of real savings.

But either way, if you don't actually want to help people get back on thier feet, then you may as well eliminate any sort of social welfare program anyway. So let's say we just say fuck it and leave the junkies out there completely cut off, the likely outcome is that they will either be 1) Dead 2) Committing Crimes 3) Become a burden to society via other channels.

So the idea here is, either actually creating a policy that would help people, or just create the facade of helping people by making rules and throwing money at a cause that ends up with a result that is unsatisfactory.

[SPANISH-RICE]

i just see so many people taking advantage of the welfare system that i couldnt see this changing much else, i feel like this would just end up spending more money and still end up having people take advantage. i think it would do alot of good for a small margin of the welfare users but actually end up hurting the people who are paying for it.

[legacy-user-544]

how about instead of urine test they give hair samples? you cant get the drug remnants out of your hair. only problem is people coming in brittany spears style, then youd have to do it another way.

[SPANISH-RICE]

d^flex;233096 wrote:
how about instead of urine test they give hair samples? you cant get the drug remnants out of your hair. only problem is people coming in brittany spears style, then youd have to do it another way.

theres still hair there... a little bit. pluck a couple dark and curlies...

[HandoEX]

d^flex;233096 wrote:
how about instead of urine test they give hair samples? you cant get the drug remnants out of your hair. only problem is people coming in brittany spears style, then youd have to do it another way.

What if someone did drugs five years ago and then got clean? The hair sample may still show the drug and result in a negative test.

[SPANISH-RICE]

if you havent cut your hair in 5 years... you still do drugs

[3_Series]

d^flex;233096 wrote:
how about instead of urine test they give hair samples? you cant get the drug remnants out of your hair. only problem is people coming in brittany spears style, then youd have to do it another way.
While the detection period for hair samples is longer than that of a urine/blood test, it is a much more expensive way of drug testing. Also, dark-haired people tend to retain drugs in their hair for longer because of a higher melanin concentration, and can be many times more likely to test positive than a light-haired person who used the same amount of drugs, which is why most federal programs don't use it already.

As far as marijuana becoming legal, I simply don't see it happening in the US. The more likely scenario is that it becomes rescheduled (currently in schedule I), so that people with legitimate medical uses for it (cancer and AIDS patients for example) can have access to it.

A fact I find interesting is that as the schedules sit right now, it is actually more illegal than cocaine and methamphetamine.

[SPANISH-RICE]

in MN possesion is just a fine you have to pay no court time at all

[3_Series]

While a handful of states have decriminalized posession (fines instead of jail time) of small amounts for first time drug offenders, including MN as you said, at the federal level (and from a scheduling standpoint), the punishment is still large.