The site you referenced isn't at all biased, is it.
and federal income tax only makes up about half of revenue, so its far from the whole story
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Mandantory Drug Tests
- Thread starter sandmangeck
- Start date
- Status
and federal income tax only makes up about half of revenue, so its far from the whole story
So what? Who said anything about sales tax? Sales tax does not equate to government taking your money without your consent, as no one is forcing you to buy anything. Nevertheless, who do you think pays the majority of sales tax? Welfare recipients?
I didn't bring up the taxes "Government stealing my money and giving it away to the poor" angle. Another poster on this thread brought it up.
BTW, drug dealers probably don't except food stamps or EBT cards for their products. Some States (including Hawaii) are now using EBT cards instead of food stamps. Single men cannot get cash assistance from the State of Hawaii (including from EBT cards), they only get the food assistance portion at $314 per month maximum.
I find it amusing how in one thread, the constitutional rights of the American were so strongly defended (the right to own guns thread) and in this one, they're totally ignored.
That's ridiculous. There are many things you need to buy in order to live--and yes, many of them are taxed. Similarly, if you want a roof over your head, you have to pay property tax either directly or indirectly (through rent). And as far as income taxes go--no one is forcing you to live here, either.
You're being ironic, right?
Many subsidies are implemented in the form of tax deductions. If you take a deduction, it means the government has to get the money from someone else. Framing it in terms of "stealing" is simply a red herring.
The mortgage interest deduction is voluntary. Nobody is forcing you to take it. You can take the standard deduction if you want. So, line up for your drug test and 8 hours a week of community service.
@Floyd Eye
Take a deep breath, relax and enjoy your day.
That's what I plan to do, until the Patriots game starts, that is! Hehe!
How my day progresses from there depends on whether the Patriots beat the Jets or not.
Go Pats!
Take a deep breath, relax and enjoy your day.
That's what I plan to do, until the Patriots game starts, that is! Hehe!How my day progresses from there depends on whether the Patriots beat the Jets or not.
Go Pats!
You're new to American politics, aren't you.
How'd you guess?!
I just find it very confusing that people are more outraged by having the peoples guns taken away, than a total invasion of their privacy.Hard not to enjoy the day when you live in Hawaii isn't it?@Floyd Eye
Take a deep breath, relax and enjoy your day.
How my day progresses from there depends on whether the Patriots beat the Jets or not.
How'd you guess?!
What's privacy? What store do we go to buy that?
Just kidding. Stores have too many cameras in them.
Meh. The DARE program here is biased and full of faulty statistics and misinformation.
Case and point. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug. Cocaine is schedule 2. It is hard to say that marijuana is a "gateway drug" if all drugs are considered equally as bad, or less bad than it is. As DARE would put it, marijuana is this terrible gateway drug that will lead to problems with all other drugs.
There are several other things involved in my dislike for DARE, but misinformation in the program is the largest beef I have with it.
The more I read from you (and a few others) on this topic, the more I think you either have no clue as to what addiction really is, or don't know as much about addiction as you think you do. Your posts all have one thing in common that makes me suspect this. They all contain common misconceptions about drug addicts/addiction.
Drug addiction is a brain disease identified by components of physical and psychological dependence. The psychological component maintains a steadfast hold on the addict. It is this component that makes maintaining sobriety so difficult for sufferers.
Drug addiction results in drug-seeking behaviors and continued use despite negative consequences. Drug-seeking behaviors with something like benzodiazepine (Xanax) may include getting the drug from more than one provider or illegally obtaining the drug without a doctors prescription, stealing money, peoples possessions in order to obtain the money, etc to get the drug.
People with an addiction do not have control over what they are doing, taking or using. Many addicts want to stop using, the problem is they don't know how, so more often than not, they can't stop using and continue with the negative behaviors and drug use. It's not as easy as people think and much more complex than "just quit using."
The brain of an addict is literally rewired. Brain imaging shows that addiction severely alters brain areas critical to decision-making, learning and memory, and behavior control.
So yes, though the initial choice to do drugs does fall on the user, the choice to become an addict does not. The choice for them to break the law also falls on them, but if they weren't afflicted with addiction, then they more than likely would NOT break the law, especially in the areas of theft.
There is also a difference between substance abuse and substance addiction. To be blunt about it. Not all people that abuse drugs are addicts but all addicts abuse drugs. The abuser more than likely won't go out and rob and steal from people to get the drug where the addict will.
Now, I implore you (and others) saying similar things, to actually open up your mind and do a little research of your own what addiction truly is.
BTW, helping others that can't help themselves does not make us a country of wimps/saps/wusses. What it does, is makes us a nation of compassionate people. Compassion is not a weakness.
It's also not that we're feeling sorry for addicts, what we are being is actually empathic towards them. There's a difference. You should look that up too while you're at it. No counselor I've ever met is sympathetic towards an addict, they are empathic. Society in general, does not feel either towards drug addicts, they would be quite content having them all thrown in jail for a very long time and completely removed from society.
I'm guessing that I'm one of those "few others". I've had nicotine addiction (fortunately not anywhere near as socially sanctioned as "drugs") and psychological dependence on pot. I've experimented with other things but not found them appealing enough to continue using regularly. (MDMA came close though). I've also been "friends" with heroin addicts, both active and trying to get out via the methadone route. Never used heroin myself - my philosophy there is that if Lemmy says a particular drug is a ****ing stupid idea, then it probably is. (So, I've been in at the shallow end of the pool but not the deep end).
The one thing I've learned from my (admittedly more limited than your) observations and experiences is that, people who don't own their **** can't fix their ****.
This is where we disagree. For me, if you make a choice that has a probable consequence that you've been warned about in advance, you choose the consequence - and the responsibility for all that follows from that - when you make the choice.
I don't disagree at all. My comments were based on recreational use, which - as you pointed out - doesn't necessarily mean that the user "wasted" someone else's money on the drug, and I stand corrected there.
Addicts are a whole different category, and, yes, they deserve compassion and help to get back on their feet, not the ridiculous notion of a shotgun in the face zombie-style. But they also deserve to be presented with the bill at the end of the process. If someone falls into a hole and breaks a leg, the person who dug the hole is normally presented with the medical bill.
Jail has to be around as a last resort, but I agree with you that it's not a desirable outcome, either for the addict or for society. If someone can undo their mistake and get a firm grasp onto the bottom rung of the ladder and start climbing again, everyone wins and a life is saved.
I salute you for your work helping that happen.
I'm guessing it was the much dreaded marijuana they were trying to rehab you from.
Remind me never to be your friend. People with drug problems have deeper issues and the last thing they need is for their support system to turn their backs on them. People make mistakes and it seems like forgiveness isn't in your vocabulary.
I'd be happy if they'd just stop benefits for people with cell phones...
My foster kids mom supposedly still has her kids according to DSHS here in the state of Washington. Even though the state knows we have her kids, she still gets paid extra money for her housing allowance for her and her 3 kids (we have 2 of hers, the eldest lives with his Dad). While she has had a hard life and made some very very bad decisions, I've found that the biggest thing that pisses me off is the fact that she has not one, not two, but three cell phones. Well, that and the fact that she gets more money from the state to watch her kids (which she doesn't have) than we do (who are actually TAKING CARE OF HER KIDS). So, long story short - lets make it realistic: If you can afford a cell phone, maybe you shouldn't be getting all those state dollars you are getting after all...
Kind of OT, but I think most people that think testing people for Welfare would stand behind this, and the people that don't...well, maybe you should be paying their cell phone bill, not me.
My foster kids mom supposedly still has her kids according to DSHS here in the state of Washington. Even though the state knows we have her kids, she still gets paid extra money for her housing allowance for her and her 3 kids (we have 2 of hers, the eldest lives with his Dad). While she has had a hard life and made some very very bad decisions, I've found that the biggest thing that pisses me off is the fact that she has not one, not two, but three cell phones. Well, that and the fact that she gets more money from the state to watch her kids (which she doesn't have) than we do (who are actually TAKING CARE OF HER KIDS). So, long story short - lets make it realistic: If you can afford a cell phone, maybe you shouldn't be getting all those state dollars you are getting after all...
Kind of OT, but I think most people that think testing people for Welfare would stand behind this, and the people that don't...well, maybe you should be paying their cell phone bill, not me.
Like I said, where does it stop? Why should there be restrictions on what poor people can have? Most people would call that fascist.
Really? Fascist? Show me where I (or anybody) should have their cell phone bill paid for by someone else. I'm not saying she should be drug tested, I'm saying if she's got 3 cell phones (each one with the full data plan, so that's what 100 bucks a pop) can't prioritize and has shouldn't be looking for other people to pay her bills...also, why should she get a 3 bedroom house rented for her, and just her alone paid for by other people? I'm going to guess you kind of glossed over that, because otherwise that would mean that you are quite possibly either in the 5th grade, or just very dumb...or maybe you are my foster kids mom, in which case, what's up Jessica?
- Status
