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

Post Reply New Topic

Interesting comparison between orphanages and foster care. The foster care system is a joke, but I would say orphanages and foster homes are probably close to being the same in terms of bullying, abuse, rape, murder/suicide. I mean, what would happen after someone ages out of an orphanage? I'm guessing the same thing as when someone ages out of foster care--lack of proper education from a chaotic home life means dismal chance of good college experience (if admitted at all) and/or poor prospects of vocational training, though you might be lucky and get a good apprenticeship with the unions. The "real world" is highly complex and requires discipline and structure for a person to understand; without being taught HOW to get ahead in the "real world," you basically get thrown out in the street and told "good luck." Yes, I'm in a bad situation, but at least I know that I have a mom I can fall back on IF I ABSOLUTELY HAD TO. These kids don't even get that. So if you end up homeless, your best bet is a street gang. Whoring and selling dope go a long way to paying the rent.

THAT SAID...

Anyone fairly determined to break the cycle can survive foster care and at least have a chance at a decent life. A former friend of mine ("former" because ultimately there was a girl involved ) made it to college as a music major and was quite good. I think what might have happened is living the good life of college distorted his sense of proportion and distracted him from his studies, not to mention music is perhaps one of the most difficult subjects to major in. He ended up flunking out and later becoming a professional wrestler or some such. I have no idea where he is now and am fine with that as long as he's miles away from me!

I think he COULD have made it, and as a product of the system, he's lucky he got as far as he did.

I'm not here to engage in a debate about the topic, nor do I care to allow such a debate to degrade into personal attacks. I already digressed once in this thread for someone who wasn't worth it and I will be mindful not to make that mistake again. I realize others are engaging in a debate about the topic and I cannot control their actions, but please keep in mind that I am not here to debate the topic. In fact, I generally avoid this part of the forum. I've communicated with you in other parts of the forum and know you're capable of solid and amicable dialogue. Please keep your manners in this thread and mind that it's not a down-and-dirty debate thread. Thank you.

It's not just that impoverished drug-addicts on the street are merely a "burden" to society. Without money, basic shelter, or resources, they can be dangerous. It's far less costly to rehabilitate them then to suffer the rather of thousands of panhandling addicts or imprision them all (and the USA does this tremendously, the USA imprisions more people than the One-Party Totalitarian state known as China, and that country has a population of BILLIONS).

The nature of welfare makes it nigh on impossible for people to be rehabilitated into productive members of society. As a welfare recipient (UK not US), these are what I feel to be the main barriers to anyone looking for a way back (drug user or otherwise):

1) Your disability/illness is your source of income. The moment you start trying to improve yourself, you weaken your claim, which the welfare office will use as an excuse to throw you off welfare before you're ready.

2) Employer prejudice; this is especially pertinent to drug users. Plus, who wants to hire someone who has no skills/experience and has been out of circulation for a number of years?

3) Limited earning potential. Even if the person gets a job, it won't keep a roof over their head. And with the all-or-nothing nature of welfare, there's no support for the people who can get a job but can't pay all the overheads like rent, income tax et al.

In summary, the main problem with trying to find a way back is that there's nothing to go back for.

On this, I agree with you completely. Not your cup of tea obviously, but Reason magazine has devoted their entire July issue to the issues facing the US justice system, and the damage done by high rates of incarceration in particular. I'm going to link the articles in a dedicated thread, and I think you'll find yourself in strong agreement with quite a bit of what they have to say on the matter.

Offending passage deleted. Sorry about that, wefunction.

In some cases quitting cold turkey is outright dangerous.

That welfare often serves as a poverty trap because attempts to escape are punished by the state is the fault of the stingy state. It's the state that wants people to prove that they're really are incapable because we can't pay for capable people on welfare, can we, and it's they who ban all attempts to make money and begin the process of trying to get into the workforce by clawing back every penny they make in such. It's all in the name of saving money and of making welfare unpleasant. Well, they turn it into a trap, it's their doing, it's their fault.

Yep it's that simple. Anyone who thinks a child deserves to die just to make an example out of someone else has a blatant disregard for the child. That's like thinking it's okay to kill a member of a murderer's family so he knows how the victim's family feels. What I think should be done, as someone else said in the thread, is to take the kids away if the parents can't function as parents and put em in the care of foster parents or w/e. As for the bill, well I'm not too sure what stance to take on it yet since I feel pretty ambivalent...

They may give some kind of mass-utilitarian argument that allowing an "unfortunate" example to happen will allow future drug addicts to think before they become addicts, thus saving a greater number of children from becoming the victims of would-be deadbeat drug addicted parents. The whole deterrent idea is flawed though as it relies on ignorance of the true nature of drug addiction. Nobody decides to become addicted. People become addicted because they are unaware of the limitations of their so-called "free-will". In their hubris they think they don't have a problem and can quit anytime they want, that is until they realize they can't (at least not without outside force/intervention) in which case it's too late. The same goes for drunk drivers who unintentionally cause fatal accidents. They have a ridiculous hubris and illusion that they are in control and that their judgement isn't impaired when it clearly is impaired. Disincentives don't work very well when there is such ignorance involved.

Well they have a pretty ridiculous perspective of human nature. The most effective deterrents are immediate and certain, which is the whole reason the death penalty doesn't deter crooks. We are simply too short sighted and impulsive to be deterred by the consequences of some vague distant future. How many smokers have quit cuz they might get cancer compared to those who quit cuz they just coughed some blood up?

Yeah just quitting all the sudden will work great because they will be dead from severe withdrawls. Not all drugs are going to cause bad withdrawls but many of them will.

Heres a solution

Legalize drug use so that the people who NEED help can get it.

theres an idea.

I grew up around addicts, and believe me, that welfare money doesn't go to buying food for the kids anyway. All addicts should be cut off from any government help, put into hard labor (and no, I don't care if they die from withdrawal ), and their children should be removed and placed in state operated boarding schools.

Well I am going to be blunt I think that is BS, I am fine with having the children put in a more safe environment......but the addicts need help not abuse. and yeah forcing them all into hard labor and giving them no treatment for their drug problem or withdrawls is pretty sick if you ask me.

I am suprised there are so many people on this website who have aboslutly no care in the world about what others might be going through. And would just assume anyone with problems dies so the rest of us don't have to be bothered by their existance.

My dad drinks too much because he is an alcoholic, and I would not wish hard labor or withdrawls on him. Yeah it caused problems, yes it was detrimental to my childhood.....but there is also his feelings, his abusive childhood and how things ended up going with my mom before the divorce.