Why should a drug addict's babies die? ("Welfare"

Post Reply New Topic

what is your definiton of an addict?

You've had bad experiences with deadbeat drug addicts which entitles you to hate and wish harm on them. I've had bad experience with presumptuous small-minded judgemental conservative pricks and feel the same for them. It's all even. I can't tell which is the worse sickness.

That's a bad idea, because then government will want people to be addicted to the drug so they can generate tax revenue.

Oh yeah, put them into hard labor instead of helping them, thats very nice. In some sort of "camp" I presume? Sending their kids to boarding schools and stopping them having contact with their parents? And I really like the "I don't care if they die" part alot. You seem like a VERY nice person indeed mr benbob!

The children are in danger from their own parents, they also may suffer from health problems related to malnutrition.

Kind of like alcohol and ciggerettes...oh wait those are legal. but whats nice about keeping other drugs illegal is you can make money of of the addicts, and just any drug user in general(even if they are not addicted and are contributing).

I never said have them stay WITH their parents. Just stay in contact with them, and go back with them when they are clean. Don't you think that putting them into labor is a bit extreme? Maybe they should just go to rehab. I'm sure the money spent on the "war on drugs" could fund helping addicts to recover. These people aren't monsters, they are just sick and need help.

I never said I was conservative, I'm a liberal without the bleeding heart. I guess you guys have never actually dealt with junkies, alcoholics, and gambling addicts before. They feed of sympathy and use it to exploit people, they fish for an inch and take a mile. The only way to make an addict "recover" is to force them. If they are going to leech the system, put them into labor and make them reform (the success rate of rehab is pitiful, it's usually just a cover put on by the addict so it can pretend it wants to change while people are looking at it), those that can't are a waste of resources - let them die for all I care. And I really mean I don't care, they'll die soon enough anyway, so why help extend their pointless and futile existence?

But hey, prove me wrong, if you're all so confident in your namby-pap sentiments, then please, let a junkie live in your house - see how long it takes for that thing to rob you and want you to pity it for doing so. That goes for you "marshall", you ignorant pansy.

Junkies and the like are not good people suffering from a disease, they're weak, lazy, selfish, dishonest creatures that don't even care about their own children.

i use cannabis both medically and in social settings, i hold a job and have done so since age 15, now one can argue when one is addicted which is why i ask of you, what is your definition of an addict?
i would say i am addicted(i need it to sleep sometimes and sleep is required for function), yet because my family is accepting and has seen the alternative side effects of pharmacology and the general mentality in denmark is accepting of cannabis use, the negative side effects are greatly reduced.
there are of course both mental and physical side effects but the most damaging in this regard is when one is demonized or isolated because of a drug use, it could be interesting to see how some of the psychological long term tendencies stand in regard to that, maybe there is a study somewhere but i doubt it.

all of the above is primarily cabout cannabis, many other drugs hold far greater risk to the user, i think as long as people are only hurting themselves they should have the right to do so, however they do not have the right to hurt their children, they have rights of their own.

Good point, I define an addict as someone who is completely controlled by at least one addiction - the textbook junkie. I wouldn't consider you an addict (unless you lost your job and began stealing, scamming, cheating the system, and hurting people to get your next fix). I wouldn't extent that to coffee drinkers and smokers albeit I don't think people on welfare should be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol.

But I was under the impression that cannabis was psychologically addictive but not physiologically addictive.

it's true it isnt physiologically addictive as such, there are still people that become very heavily addicted to it.
i lived with a room mate on an art school once who started having this problem just before our semester was finished, we met 6 months later and he was truly a wreck

the point i am trying to make is that it isnt simple enough to legislate against as many people would be caught up in the process that simply dont deserve it.
what would help would be a positive option with positive affirmation but strict handling.

the problem becomes much larger when children are involved and there i would agree that anyone who chooses drugs over their own childrens health has a very serious problem.
i think they should be forced the choice of either giving up their child or going to a proper rehab center, with the child being placed in a temporary care to be reintroduced when possible.

QFT. Becoming an addict is a lever, not a switch. People have a chance to fix themselves if they want to, however my sentiments are for the ones who do not change. They are a write off.

I mean sure, if they change, they should be able to rebuild their lives, but if not, their life is a waste of resources.

How is forcing them into hard labor going to solve anything? how would it cause them to reform?...also lets not forget many people who are addicted to drugs or use drugs in general already have mental problems. Sometimes self medicating can go wrong and that's where you get a lot of addicts. should someone be put into forced labor and just get treated like dirt for the rest of their life because they where trying to kill the pain? I mean lets not forget most addicts do not start out that way, though some are more prone to become addicts due to genetics. And I am not saying everyone should feel sorry for them, but maybe try thinking about what it would be like to be in their place and maybe all this 'for all I care they can all die' and 'the scum should be forced into hard labor' arrogance would die down.

Also what I described is probably not the case for everyone who has become addicted, you have recreational users who get carried away as well or ignorant people, like people that don't realise alcohol is a drug...thats another wierd trend. so I don't want to be accused of generalizing. Then there are regular people who get a prescription and then are horrified to realise they can't go without it.....and thus are addicted. And this may not be very relevent but I think Nikki Sixx from Motley Crue makes a better musician then hard laborist.

This is a tough topic. I don't disagree with drug testing for gov assistance. I'm not sure how I feel about making people pay for it, it doesn't seem unreasonable.. A DAS10 is a urine test, quickly resulted, and doesn't have to be expensive. If you're clean, they pay you back. Much like they do with contested paternity tests. If you're found to not be the father, it's free. If, oops, you are, you have to pay for the testing.

I, unfortunately, see a lot of people who abuse the system. (Yes, I acknowledge that the system often inhibits self-betterment.) I know a family of 4 who gets approximately $700 a month in food benefits. They sell about half of their benefits, spend the other half extravagantly, and at the end of the month the children live on peanut butter and Top Ramen. The mother just can't seem to keep a job when she does get one. The father is an alcoholic and works sporadically.

The mother's brother is an alcoholic and addicted to prescription meds.. Often using up to 30 percs or vics a day. He lost his job for too many no call/no shows and collects unemployment, which he abuses as he's not out looking for work. He's home drunk and high. He receives food benefits, as well. He has a blowbox in his car because he's had too many DUIs. He has an ex wife who is pretty much the same. He has a son who is pretty much ignored by both parents.

If these parents had to get tested to receive their benefits, maybe it would change the circumstances for the kids. If they offered treatment for people to get help with their addictions, perhaps it give them incentive and support to get clean.

My biological father is an alcoholic and addicted to vics. I did not grow up in his home. I have two brothers that did. One has been an addict since he was 15, and is currently in a federal penitentiary. He has been in and out of prison his whole adult life, and sadly probably always will be. My other brother is an addict as well. His son is neglected, abandoned by his mother as an infant, and is severely autistic and doesn't get the help or attention he needs. I love my brothers dearly, but I don't have much hope for any of them. I can't imagine how different my life might be if I had grown up in that home. I remember my little brothers commenting on my drunk, passed out father and saying "I'm never going to be like him when I grow up". Unfortunately, they've turned out worse. I mourn for the people my brothers used to be.

Foster care might not always be the greatest situation, and unfortunately, sometime quite horrible... but leaving children in a bad home is almost guaranteed to be a failure. Sure, there are the occasions that the kids turn out just fine, but I think it's rare. If this sort of testing could be used as a stepping stone to implement counseling and drug treatment, I think it would be an excellent program.

Saying that implementing this testing will punish the children is just ignorant of the realities of the situation. The children are already punished. Real addicts will sell whatever benefits they can. The whole situation is f****d up. I do think it would be more constructive to still give benefits to those who fail the drug test and require they complete a treatment process.

in the end every single human is addicted to something or someone, yes, that is by the definition that it is an action with negative consequences.

In the UK i heard older heroin users referred to, favourably, as 'old-school' junkies, meaning functioning addicts, retaining enough control to hold down a job and taking care of a family.

The implication is that in a previous era the drug culture was very different and the stereotypical 'junkie' lifestyle of hustling, begging & going on the rob in an endless grind just wasnt considered. or at least it was far rarer and not viewed an almost inevitable consequence of regular heroin use.

What do people think (older people ideally) Is this just a myth?

Im in my 30s but older people are always banging on about how societies gone down the pan and all these widespread acts of random violence and assorted antisocial behaviours didnt occur back in the day. So it does have an air of plausability about it, the idea of the moral fabric of society crumbling over the decades, and drug addicts from the lower classes forming part of the dystopic vanguard.