Florida first to stop financing drug addiction with tax dollars

OhWiseOne

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,518
Media
251
Likes
2,967
Points
358
Location
Florida
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
First of all, I don't know where this notion came from that every dollar you pay in taxes is going to be spent on something you 100% agree with- that's absurd. My taxes (and I actually pay taxes) go to fund all sorts of things I find questionable but whats most troubling are the things I know I don't know about and likely never will that consume the funds I give to the government. How do I deal with that? I vote.

Secondly, what do I care whether or not Suzie on Welfare smokes weed or does coke? If that's how she wants to waste her money, more power to her. It means she'll inevitably die sooner and free up resources across the board. Isn't that what conservatives want anyway? Fewer people on welfare? Can't collect a check if you're dead.

Finally, I agree with the statement that no law is perfect, however I think this country has way too many arbitrary, essentially toothless laws that serve as little more than billboards for the legislative detritus of Candidate A, B, or C during an election cycle. "I hate immigrants too! Look at my record in _____ and you'll know it! Vote for me!" That's what this strikes me as- the law itself even has a built in work-around; mom and dad are strung out when they apply so we'll have grandma be the recipient on behalf of the kids. Problem... solved? This won't decrease the number of people on welfare and it won't discourage anybody from using drugs.








JSZ

I never said anything about agreeing 100% on where my tax dollars are spent. I know that won't happen that is democracy at work. But off topic so I will leave that as it is.

Secondly, I do care if Suzie is smoking weed or doing any kind of drug if it's on my dollar. "her money" no its my money she is spending. I'm not taking the conservative / liberal view point just my opinion.

I agree with your last comment. Say what you need to say to get elected. I simply clarified my comment on children because I miss spoke. Do i agree with the work around? No because grandma will just give the money to the parents that couldn't pass the test.
 

OhWiseOne

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,518
Media
251
Likes
2,967
Points
358
Location
Florida
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't think so.
The law as it currently stands only targets people who are on government assistance for illegal drug purchases & usage (such as marijuana & cocaine). As stated earlier, someone could easily get a joint (or a bump) from a friend. Being part of the music industry, I can attest to just how easily available these things are made to people and they wouldn't have to spend a cent of their own cash to get it. Alas, if they smoke it and fail the test, the government would just assume that they're using their own money to purchase weed and deny them benefits. That's one glaring problem with the law right there. On top of this, as JustSomeZombie (and several others on this thread) point out the law doesn't address the issue of prescription drugs. In the case of Florida, which is notorious for its distribution of legalized drugs, all it does is perpetuate the problem of drug addiction since all they would have to do to get high is use their money to purchase pills that aren't on the watch list.



This law is far from perfect... it's an absolute mess that sounds morally pleasing but does nothing to combat the real issue. The OP thinks this law is a good idea to not only protect taxpayers (which is a load of crap from the get go since any money saved by implementing such a law would be negated by the costs of enforcing it), but to eventually take a swipe at drug addition (as worded in the thread title). As demonstrated in the documentary I linked to, these "pain centers" that distribute the drugs know the racket and already take into consideration a patient's need of a doctor's script. So even if you added Xanax or any of these other pills to the list, you still have the problem that they're legal to contend with. And with big pharma's influence on Politics these days, it'll take a lot to change that.

Things like marijuana, cocaine & heroin are banned substances to begin with so it's easy to check for traces of these drugs and administer a punishment. But what about Oxycodone which is essentially legalized heroin? If a drug addict on welfare has a doctor's note and a legal prescription, there's nothing the government can do even if they are using welfare money to purchase it. There are more people abusing prescription drugs in this country than Cocaine, Heroin and Ecstacy combined. So while the government continues to go after those who want to roll a blunt, the real drugs of choice by most addicts these days are not under the same scrutiny in any shape or form. Problem solved? Doesn't sound like it to me. :frown1:

Seriously, you should watch the documentary. They stream the entire thing right from their website.

Yes we agree that it targets illegal drugs and I stated early that we could include legal drugs but where is the line drawn and the ability to obtain true documentation would be difficult.
If they choose to smoke weed or do a line that they have not paid for more power to them but they know the rules. If they get caught the pay the price.
Finally, you have a number of good points but I feel they are off topic and maybe a new thread would be a better place to discuss them. Just my opinion not trying to keep you from voicing your thoughts.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Secondly, I do care if Suzie is smoking weed or doing any kind of drug if it's on my dollar. "her money" no its my money she is spending. I'm not taking the conservative / liberal view point just my opinion.

Well technically, it's not your dollar. It's the government's money. Once you pay your taxes, what they decide to spend it on is their decision. The only thing we can do is elect people to office who may shift that money towards programs and laws that better suits your fancy. However, to suggest that someone on welfare doing drugs is spending your money is disingenuous.

But doesn't it sound great when a politician says it? :biggrin1:

Yes we agree that it targets illegal drugs and I stated early that we could include legal drugs but where is the line drawn and the ability to obtain true documentation would be difficult.

It's actually not that difficult for people to get the necessary documents to get a prescription for pain pills, as clearly demonstrated in the documentary.

If they choose to smoke weed or do a line that they have not paid for more power to them but they know the rules. If they get caught the pay the price.

Yep... and you want the price to be a denial of government assistance. Which would then leave a drug addict with no funds to take care of themselves or their habit, which results into a person seeking more desperate measures to generate money since we're administering punishment without attempting to treat the cause. That leads to higher crime rates and more incarcerations. And guess what is used to fund these things? Your tax dollars. So either Suzie is spending tax money on a joint, or your tax money is going to be used to put Suzie in jail, which can be anywhere up to $72,000 per inmate per year.

Meanwhile a dime bag of weed goes for about $10.
All legalities and moralistic banter aside, which one do you think is costing you more money?

Finally, you have a number of good points but I feel they are off topic and maybe a new thread would be a better place to discuss them. Just my opinion not trying to keep you from voicing your thoughts.

This thread was initially worded with the ideology of stopping the financing of drug addiction with tax dollars. Pointing out the flaws in the bill, as well as arguing that the issue with drug addition would not be addressed properly with its implementation by showing where most addicts are getting their fixes in Florida is very much on topic. Bottom line, this law is nothing but rhetorical, moralistic tripe worded to sound like they're combating something when in reality they're doing nothing to address the real problems. Perhaps I'd be more willing to accept the bill if it was written to only target people on government assistance who have a previous criminal record that is drug related? At least this way, it doesn't treat the majority of people who are on the program and doing the right thing like cattle.
 
Last edited:

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
Well technically, it's not your dollar. It's the government's money. Once you pay your taxes, what they decide to spend it on is their decision. The only thing we can do is elect people to office who may shift that money towards programs and laws that better suits your fancy. However, to suggest that someone on welfare doing drugs is spending your money is disingenuous.

But doesn't it sound great when a politician says it? :biggrin1:

This is exactly why I brought up people having the notion that their tax dollars should only get spent in the way they see fit and on things they deem appropriate. Once you've paid your taxes, where that money goes and to whom is out of your hands- what Suzie on Welfare spends her dollar on is no more or less relevant to you at that point than the rubber chicken a Congressman spends the same dollar on.

This is just decorated with language that makes it a.) sound like there's some massive problem that needs to be corrected and b.) seems to provide a "solution" to said non-existent problem in the same breath.




JSZ
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
This is exactly why I brought up people having the notion that their tax dollars should only get spent in the way they see fit and on things they deem appropriate. Once you've paid your taxes, where that money goes and to whom is out of your hands- what Suzie on Welfare spends her dollar on is no more or less relevant to you at that point than the rubber chicken a Congressman spends the same dollar on.

This is just decorated with language that makes it a.) sound like there's some massive problem that needs to be corrected and b.) seems to provide a "solution" to said non-existent problem in the same breath.

I'm glad that there are still some people on LPSG who can see through the verbal smokescreens. :wink:
 

OhWiseOne

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,518
Media
251
Likes
2,967
Points
358
Location
Florida
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Well technically, it's not your dollar. It's the government's money. Once you pay your taxes, what they decide to spend it on is their decision. The only thing we can do is elect people to office who may shift that money towards programs and laws that better suits your fancy. However, to suggest that someone on welfare doing drugs is spending your money is disingenuous.

But doesn't it sound great when a politician says it? :biggrin1:



It's actually not that difficult for people to get the necessary documents to get a prescription for pain pills, as clearly demonstrated in the documentary.



Yep... and you want the price to be a denial of government assistance. Which would then leave a drug addict with no funds to take care of themselves or their habit, which results into a person seeking more desperate measures to generate money since we're administering punishment without attempting to treat the cause. That leads to higher crime rates and more incarcerations. And guess what is used to fund these things? Your tax dollars. So either Suzie is spending tax money on a joint, or your tax money is going to be used to put Suzie in jail, which can be anywhere up to $72,000 per inmate per year.

Meanwhile a dime bag of weed goes for about $10.
All legalities and moralistic banter aside, which one do you think is costing you more money?



This thread was initially worded with the ideology of stopping the financing of drug addiction with tax dollars. Pointing out the flaws in the bill, as well as arguing that the issue with drug addition would not be addressed properly with its implementation by showing where most addicts are getting their fixes in Florida is very much on topic. Bottom line, this law is nothing but rhetorical, moralistic tripe worded to sound like they're combating something when in reality they're doing nothing to address the real problems. Perhaps I'd be more willing to accept the bill if it was written to only target people on government assistance who have a previous criminal record that is drug related? At least this way, it doesn't treat the majority of people who are on the program and doing the right thing like cattle.

I just realized you are open to no other view point but your own. Good luck with that. I'm done....
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I just realized you are open to no other view point but your own. Good luck with that. I'm done....

Ummmm... actually, if you read some of my other posts you could see that I agreed with JustSomeZombie, BBucko, joyboytoy79, Industrialsize, houtx48 and many other people's comments in this thread. Just because you couldn't make an argument that I would agree with completely doesn't mean that I only see my own viewpoint. Bottom line, you're just not good at making a convincing argument, and that's your own damn fault. :rolleyes:
 

OhWiseOne

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,518
Media
251
Likes
2,967
Points
358
Location
Florida
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Ummmm... actually, if you read some of my other posts you could see that I agreed with JustSomeZombie, BBucko, joyboytoy79, Industrialsize, houtx48 and many other people. Just because you couldn't make an argument that I would agree with completely doesn't mean that I only see my own viewpoint. Bottom line, you're just not good at making a convincing argument, and that's your own damn fault. :rolleyes:

You agree with your kind and see no other view point....Oh wait your from NY...wow you use your tax dollars so well...give me a break...enjoy
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
You agree with your kind and see no other view point....Oh wait your from NY...wow you use your tax dollars so well...give me a break...enjoy

What is supposed to be "my kind" exactly? JustSomeZombie, BBucko, joyboytoy79, Industrialsize, houtx48 all seem to be different individuals to me. All different ages, from different parts of the globe, who have managed to come together with a similar viewpoint on a topic you think differently about. However, If you think you could be a judge of a person's views on society based on where they live, then that speaks volumes about just how socially ignorant you really are. Maybe that's a reason why you decided to never disclose where you actually are from, or did you think "Not Sure I Move Around" is a popular vacation destination?

And BTW, I'm not from New York. I lived there for 12 years, but I was originally born in Boston and moved back there recently with my hubby. Gee, what a surprise... yet another thing you're wrong about. But then again, you didn't have much to say that was right to begin with. Are you through trying to turn a civil discussion into another irrelevant, character attacking mess? I apologize for thinking you could have been one of the more rational thinking types. But trust me, that won't ever happen again. :rolleyes:
 

OhWiseOne

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,518
Media
251
Likes
2,967
Points
358
Location
Florida
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
What is supposed to be "my kind" exactly? JustSomeZombie, BBucko, joyboytoy79, Industrialsize, houtx48 all seem to be different individuals to me. All different ages, from different parts of the globe, who have managed to come together with a similar viewpoint on a topic you think differently about. However, If you think you could be a judge of a person's views on society based on where they live, then that speaks volumes about just how socially ignorant you really are. Maybe that's a reason why you decided to never disclose where you actually are from, or did you think "Not Sure I Move Around" is a popular vacation destination?

And BTW, I'm not from New York. I lived there for 12 years, but I was originally born in Boston and moved back there recently with my hubby. Gee, what a surprise... yet another thing you're wrong about. But then again, you didn't have much to say that was right to begin with. Are you through trying to turn a civil discussion into another irrelevant, character attacking mess? I apologize for thinking you could have been one of the more rational thinking types. But trust me, that won't ever happen again. :rolleyes:

If you want to make it personal we can but I really dont think we should. I don't put info on my page for a reason which is none of your business. Why do you say NY / Boston? misleading? As far as a civil discussion goes look back at the post and see who was willing to look at the other view point. You might be surprised. Just because people are from different parts of the world and differnet ages and you agree doesn't mean your right. I have attacked no ones character or opinion in this discussion until I am personally attacked, which would be you. If you aren't open to other views and at least consider them I am sorry.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
If you want to make it personal we can but I really dont think we should.

But you did when you implied that I was stubborn and narrow-minded for not agreeing with you.

I don't put info on my page for a reason which is none of your business.

Trust me, I don't give a damn either way. But since you wanted to make an ignorant judgement call about my ability to understand what you said based on where I live, I figured taking a shot at you for being a coward and hiding such information was justified.

Why do you say NY / Boston? misleading?

I would tell you, but since you want to be nasty about things over a silly dispute regarding a Floridian law it's none of your damn business either. :rolleyes:

As far as a civil discussion goes look back at the post and see who was willing to look at the other view point. You might be surprised. Just because people are from different parts of the world and differnet ages and you agree doesn't mean your right.

Being able to look at, recognize and understand another person's viewpoint does not require someone to agree with it. In fact, if I didn't understand your angles then I wouldn't be able to come up with a detailed rebuttal in response. Also, whether or not you believe me to be right on a rhetorical argument that has no definitive answer is irrelevant. The new legislation was recently signed into law, and over time we can both see just how effective it is. I doubt it's going to do anything substantial to reverse the trends and abuses in government assistance programs, nor will it help to stop drug addiction as the OP disingenuously implies. I even suggested a way to adjust the law to make it more appeasable to both sides of the argument, but you ignored it.

Ultimately, until we have some viable statistics to go by, you have no grounds beyond your own ideological beliefs to say that anyone is right or wrong on this issue.

I have attacked no ones character or opinion in this discussion until I am personally attacked, which would be you.

The post you decided to quote and respond with your dismissive ignorance about being from "NY" had no character attacks, nor took any personal grievances with you. From my angle, you're just pissed that I don't see things your way and decided to make sweeping generalizations as to what "my kind" would be based on where I live.

If you aren't open to other views and at least consider them I am sorry.

I repeat - Just because you couldn't make an argument that I would agree with completely doesn't mean that I only see my own viewpoint. Bottom line, you're just not good at making a convincing argument, and that's your own damn fault. For the sake of this thread no going the way of the flames, we can just agree to disagree and split company.
 

DenverCumAddict

Admired Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Posts
64
Media
100
Likes
818
Points
83
Age
58
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

Landmark legislation which will:

  • stop enabling drug addiction for welfare recipients
  • provide incentive for the unmotivated to stop using drugs
  • address the substantial and out of control problem of entitlement spending
Cut everybody off. Our Country can't provide us with a happy life. Feels its not responsible for general well-being of its Citizens. But feels its opinions of us arre warranted. Republicans just want all but themselves to die off, so the real America can rise.