Mandantory Drug Tests

[dj150888]

your gray area. not mine. you want a gray area, i consider your system naive.

again, alcohol use is an exponential curve ending in death.

as inhibitions fade, you drink more, and vice versa.

if you can stop at 1 or 2, then great. but the potential for tragedy is always there.

its like buying a gun. you're more likely to shoot someone if you have access to a gun. moreso than someone without a gun. once you've taken that step, you can be dangerous, regardless of your intentions.

Again, you're grossly simplifying, acting as if all people drink for the same reasons. Lots of people can stop at one or two. The alcoholics are, in my experience, the minority. The occasional binge drinkers form a larger percentage, as do the "glass of wine in the evening" types.

Theres a potential for tragedy walking down the street.

 

[GregC]

of course. yes. how could i forget. according to america (especially california), pot is juuuuust fine. not like people shoot each other over it.

I never said it was "just fine" or anything remotely like it. I said it doesn't make people run into others' homes and kill them for money to buy more. You have evidence to the contrary?

Yes, there is occasionally violence between suppliers/growers. But you don't see pot smokers staging home invasions. And the overall violence associated with marijuana pales in comparison to the violence that results from the use of harder drugs. Which, again, is far less likely to be reduced by testing.

 

[GregC]

I never said it was "just fine" or anything remotely like it. I said it doesn't make people run into others' homes and kill them for money to buy more. You have evidence to the contrary?

Yes, there is occasionally violence between suppliers/growers. But you don't see pot smokers staging home invasions. And the overall violence associated with marijuana pales in comparison to the violence that results from the use of harder drugs. Which, again, is far less likely to be reduced by testing.

Even if I was somehow in agreement with your sky-high estimates of how many people use drugs, your hyper-punitive stance and your pro-eugenics slant, the idea of drug testing all who receive public assistance is highly impractical.

It's unlikely to punish those who use hard drugs and thus have much more of a negative impact on society.

And the costs will run in the billions, even without including college students who receive financial aid. This, at a time when both federal and state governments are running massive budget deficits.

No, this is a bad idea all around.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

Yes.



But the possibility of it happening is known, well in advance of the first use.



... it may be after the first pull of the trigger or the 7300th ...



I agree, but I still don't understand the "people don't choose to become addicts" part of the claim. If I know that doing X will (eventually) result in Y, then I can't say "I chose X but I didn't choose Y" any more than I can say "I hit myself with a rock but I didn't choose to experience pain".

Your associations are incorrect. You assume that all who choose to use a drug will become addicted. That assumption leads you to wrongly associate the choice of trying a substance, be it coffee, tobacco, alcohol, or other potentially addictive substance with choosing to become addicted. Not all people who drink acoholic beverages are (or become) addicted. Like I mentioned (and others previously) the bodies reaction is not predetermined nor predictable. Each person is "unique". The "choice" and "addiction" do not equate directly to cause and effect, because the outcomes vary from person to person.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

Even if I was somehow in agreement with your sky-high estimates of how many people use drugs, your hyper-punitive stance and your pro-eugenics slant, the idea of drug testing all who receive public assistance is highly impractical.

It's unlikely to punish those who use hard drugs and thus have much more of a negative impact on society.

And the costs will run in the billions, even without including college students who receive financial aid. This, at a time when both federal and state governments are running massive budget deficits.

No, this is a bad idea all around.

I agree with your line of reasoning on this subject.

 

[Skitch it!]

Your associations are incorrect. You assume that all who choose to use a drug will become addicted. That assumption leads you to wrongly associate the choice of trying a substance, be it coffee, tobacco, alcohol, or other potentially addictive substance with choosing to become addicted. Not all people who drink acoholic beverages are (or become) addicted. Like I mentioned (and others previously) the bodies reaction is not predetermined nor predictable. Each person is "unique". The "choice" and "addiction" do not equate directly to cause and effect, because the outcomes vary from person to person.

+1 Predisposition ; )

 

[UncleFluffy]

Your associations are incorrect. You assume that all who choose to use a drug will become addicted. That assumption leads you to wrongly associate the choice of trying a substance, be it coffee, tobacco, alcohol, or other potentially addictive substance with choosing to become addicted. Not all people who drink acoholic beverages are (or become) addicted. Like I mentioned (and others previously) the bodies reaction is not predetermined nor predictable. Each person is "unique". The "choice" and "addiction" do not equate directly to cause and effect, because the outcomes vary from person to person.

OK, I think we're getting closer to understanding where each other is coming from.

I'm not trying to claim that everyone who uses a drug becomes an addict - and apologies for my lack of clarity if it looked that way. What I am claiming is that anyone who uses a drug is voluntarily assuming the risk of becoming addicted and is therefore morally responsible for their addiction and all of its consequences when/if it happens (i.e. it's their fault).

I suspect we're just using certain labels (such as "fault" or "choice") differently. Maybe a clearer statement of my position would be that it's not their intention but it is their choice. By analogy - you're presented with two doors. Door A says "might become a junkie", door B says "will not become a junkie". In my view, going through door A and becoming a junkie is morally equivalent to choosing to become a junkie.

 

[sandmangeck]

This thread turned into sxe vs. non-straight edge. Silly people.

 

[Kitsapbass]

This thread turned into sxe vs. non-straight edge. Silly people.

All right - I'll ask. what does sxe stand for?

 

[UncleFluffy]

This thread turned into sxe vs. non-straight edge. Silly people.

I think it wandered into a whole bunch of areas, one of which was sxe vs non. It's still wandering...

 

[UncleFluffy]

All right - I'll ask. what does sxe stand for?

 

[warwick.hoy]

Yeah,...I find the militant straight edge movement to be a little frustrating.

Lighten up people.

EDIT: Aside from being wrongfully criminalized there is absolutely nothing wrong with marijuana.

 

[Kitsapbass]

So it's really crappy punk music vs. non-straight people. Good to know.

 

[UncleFluffy]

So it's really crappy punk music vs. non-straight people. Good to know.

Not sure about crappy. Minor Threat were pretty influential in their day. Probably would help if you could make out the lyrics:

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
Than sit around and **** my head
Hang out with the living dead
Snort white **** up my nose
Pass out at the shows
I don't even think about speed
That's something I just don't need

I've got the straight edge

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
Than sit around and smoke dope
'Cause I know I can cope
Laugh at the thought of eating ludes
Laugh at the thought of sniffing glue
Always gonna keep in touch
Never want to use a crutch

I've got the straight edge

 

[Skitch it!]

Yeah,...I find the militant straight edge movement to be a little frustrating.

Lighten up people.

EDIT: A side from being wrongfully criminalized there is absolutely nothing wrong with marijuana.

+1 Lesser of.

 

[Kitsapbass]

Not sure about crappy. Minor Threat were pretty influential in their day. Probably would help if you could make out the lyrics:

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
Than sit around and **** my head
Hang out with the living dead
Snort white **** up my nose
Pass out at the shows
I don't even think about speed
That's something I just don't need

I've got the straight edge

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
Than sit around and smoke dope
'Cause I know I can cope
Laugh at the thought of eating ludes
Laugh at the thought of sniffing glue
Always gonna keep in touch
Never want to use a crutch

I've got the straight edge

Sorry - not a punk music fan. Bad joke on my part, just never heard of that abbreviation before. My apologies if I offended you, but yeah, to me at least, pretty crappy. Then again, you may not like the music I do, so it's a YMMV thing.

 

[GregC]

I saw Minor Threat back in the day, they were fantastic live. But I suspect Ian Mackaye rolls his eyes at the militant finger-wagging fringe of straight edge today. And I've never heard him talking in favor of eugenics or comparing casual drug users to rapists.

I'm sure you know this, UF, just sayin'.

Not sure about crappy. Minor Threat were pretty influential in their day. Probably would help if you could make out the lyrics:

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
Than sit around and **** my head
Hang out with the living dead
Snort white **** up my nose
Pass out at the shows
I don't even think about speed
That's something I just don't need

I've got the straight edge

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
Than sit around and smoke dope
'Cause I know I can cope
Laugh at the thought of eating ludes
Laugh at the thought of sniffing glue
Always gonna keep in touch
Never want to use a crutch

I've got the straight edge

 

[UncleFluffy]

I saw Minor Threat back in the day, they were fantastic live. But I suspect Ian Mackaye rolls his eyes at the militant finger-wagging fringe of straight edge today. And I've never heard him talking in favor of eugenics or comparing casual drug users to rapists.

I'm sure you know this, UF, just sayin'.

Never saw Minor Threat, did manage Fugazi a good few times

Militant *anything* annoys the **** out of me. If it isn't crapping on your carpet, leave it alone...

What an interestingly meandering thread...

(edit: and just in case anyone is confused: I'm not straight edge in any way, shape, or form. I respect the idea, but have chosen a different path for my life.)

 

[Skitch it!]

Living colour?

No, I'm not gonna rob you
No, I'm not gonna beat you
No, I'm not gonna rape you
So why you want to give me that
Funny Vibe!

No, I'm not gonna hurt you
No, I'm not gonna harm you
And I try not to hate you
So why you want to give me that
Funny Vibe!

 

[Kitsapbass]

Living colour?

No, I'm not gonna rob you
No, I'm not gonna beat you
No, I'm not gonna rape you
So why you want to give me that
Funny Vibe!

No, I'm not gonna hurt you
No, I'm not gonna harm you
And I try not to hate you
So why you want to give me that
Funny Vibe!

Great song...always thought it was in regards to race relations. At least, that's what it said on the crappy VHS my friend had. Thanks for setting me straight on that...