Forced Birth Control with Welfare

[mangxema]

I say this is pushing it, but if you want free stuff, you can't really complain.

 

[ShannonCT]

What happens with a positive drug test? Do you propose just cutting off the check, incarceration, or a determination if the person could use some help with addiction?

But we both know that there are going to be a lot of failures and I guess the question becomes - what do we do with those failures? If welfare was left to the charities, do you think the churches would drug test and if they did, what would be the result of a positive drug test?

I agree with mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. I think positive tests should result in compulsory, institutionalized drug rehab. Drug addiction is something so insidious that the threat of being cut off from government aid is not going to cause people to quit cold-turkey. If you force people into a rehab facility, you give them a fighting chance of staying clean and getting their lives together. I'm not sure how many chances I would give people before cutting them off. No more than two.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

That kids born in bad circumstances are a benefit to the economy.

Ahhh right. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that a certain level of unemployment is a benefit to the economy.

The "bone" if you will.

Do you think someone on welfare doing drugs is a good parent? Do you think that fair to the kids? If they dont care enough about themselves or their kids to stay off drugs then perhaps the kids belong in a foster home.

Why stop at drugs? There are many who will argue that some drugs are far less harmful than alcohol. So why not take the kids off welfare mothers who drink too? In fact smoking is dangerous to a child's health also. I don't know about the US, but cigarettes in the UK cost a bloody fortune too. Welfare mothers who smoke are therefore fiscally irresponsible and should have their kids taken from them too. I hope there are plenty of potential foster parents in the US. Again, with the admin and checks that we have in the UK, something like this would cost less that just dishing out welfare in the first place.

See what JR was talking about with the 'slippery slope'?

 

[Mr. Blonde]

This plan is rubbish.
How do you ensure social mobility upwards? I think for a significant part of the population this means no kids for a lifetime. From a biological pov having kids at a young age is preferable, whereas over 30 there are more complications, miscarriages, ect. Economically speaking people will be better off in their 30s (student loans, building a career, ect.) More complications, miscarriages and handicapped kids are a good thing?

My alternative: support the childern and control that parents are using the money for the kids well being and that these parents are tending their kids well. That way everyone that wants kids can afford them and no rights are infringed.
Seriously, the problem that young families and single parents have serious economic problems is more of a sign that society doesn´t care about their kids.

 

[Jawz II]

This idea is facism. Im not surprised, considering who the OP is.

But maybe putting a limit on how many kids they can have could be a good idea. Not for families on well fare, for all families. No way they some family can have more than 4-5 spawns, and raise them all right.

 

[MobBoss]

Why stop at drugs? There are many who will argue that some drugs are far less harmful than alcohol. So why not take the kids off welfare mothers who drink too? In fact smoking is dangerous to a child's health also. I don't know about the US, but cigarettes in the UK cost a bloody fortune too. Welfare mothers who smoke are therefore fiscally irresponsible and should have their kids taken from them too. I hope there are plenty of potential foster parents in the US. Again, with the admin and checks that we have in the UK, something like this would cost less that just dishing out welfare in the first place.

See what JR was talking about with the 'slippery slope'?

There is no slippery slope. Drug testing is for illegal drugs. Illegal. Cigarettes and alcohol, despite whatever you may think of them, are totally legal. Being in the military I dont piss in a cup to see if I have been drinking or smoking, but I do in order to show I am not doing ILLEGAL drugs.

 

[JollyRoger]

There is no slippery slope. Drug testing is for illegal drugs. Illegal. Cigarettes and alcohol, despite whatever you may think of them, are totally legal. Being in the military I dont piss in a cup to see if I have been drinking or smoking, but I do in order to show I am not doing ILLEGAL drugs.

How about someone that gets a DUI? Immediate foster care for their children? How about a speeding ticket with children in the car?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

There is no slippery slope. Drug testing is for illegal drugs. Illegal. Cigarettes and alcohol, despite whatever you may think of them, are totally legal.

But the point you are making is that taking drugs demonstrates that a person isn't fit to have children is it not? Since alcohol is more harmful does it really matter that it's legal or not?

I've been driving over the speed limit for a while now, pretty darn illegal. Should my kid be taken from me as well since I've not yet paid my student loan back yet?

EDIT: JR's typing speed

Being in the military I dont piss in a cup to see if I have been drinking or smoking, but I do in order to show I am not doing ILLEGAL drugs.

Frankly I don't care what you pee in a cup for. We're discussing welfare.

 

[JohnRM]

You need the poll option, "There should be no such thing as welfare."

 

[MobBoss]

How about someone that gets a DUI? Immediate foster care for their children? How about a speeding ticket with children in the car?

Totally depends and its up to a judge to decide. If someone gets a DUI and also kills someone in the process, what happens to their kids if they get tossed in jail for manslaughter?

But the point you are making is that taking drugs demonstrates that a person isn't fit to have children is it not? Since alcohol is more harmful does it really matter that it's legal or not?

I think taking drugs is a far worse crime than a single DUI or speeding.

I've been driving over the speed limit for a while now, pretty darn illegal. Should my kid be taken from me as well since I've not yet paid my student loan back yet?

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges and the two are just not comparable. However, just so you know, my own military drivers license is totally dependant upon my civil drivers license - if my civil rights get revoked I can no longer drive on base or drive a military vehicle. Again, as Jolly said earlier, ramifications for behavior. If I have to pay attention to my speeding and not do drugs, then why not have ramifications for people on welfare as well? Fairs fair isnt it?

Frankly I don't care what you pee in a cup for. We're discussing welfare.

Frankly, we are discussing having ramifications for people on welfare, and the one I advocate is having them prove they are drug free if they want my tax money.

 

[JollyRoger]

Frankly, we are discussing having ramifications for people on welfare, and the one I advocate is having them prove they are drug free if they want my tax money.

The ramifications include, but are not limited to:

1. What do you do with a someone who tests positive
2. How do prevent the slipperly slopes of extending the logic you use to justify this testing to extending to just about anybody
3. If you use "it's good the kids" to justify removing kids for item #1, what do you do about other items where you can use the "it's good for the kids" argument. Your first response was to focus on illegality. When other illegal situations were presented to you, you got soft on crime (in regards for losing children for committing a crime that is potentially dangerous to them) - I suspect because they are crimes that apply more generally beyond the welfare class than smoking a joint. Can't have a guy losing his kid over the consequences of picking him up from school after a 3-martini lunch I suppose.

 

[MobBoss]

If you use "it's good the kids" to justify removing kids for item #1, what do you do about other items where you can use the "it's good for the kids" argument. Your first response was to focus on illegality. When other illegal situations were presented to you, you got soft on crime (in regards for losing children for committing a crime that is potentially dangerous to them) - I suspect because they are crimes that apply more generally beyond the welfare class than smoking a joint. Can't have a guy losing his kid over the consequences of picking him up from school after a 3-martini lunch I suppose.

Last I checked it wasnt illegal to have a 3 martini lunch, while it is against the law to have a 3 bong hit lunch. Its not being soft on crime to realize that not all crimes impact society equally. A speeding ticket is not an indication of someone being able to take care of a kid as much as being stoned on the taxpayers dime does.

 

[JollyRoger]

Last I checked it wasnt illegal to have a 3 martini lunch, while it is against the law to have a 3 bong hit lunch. Its not being soft on crime to realize that not all crimes impact society equally.

It is illegal to drive while intoxicated with your kid in the car - and that would have a greater negative impact on society than smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home.

 

[MobBoss]

It is illegal to drive while intoxicated with your kid in the car - and that would have a greater negative impact on society than smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home.

I disagree. Where did the joint come from? What crimes were commited in order to get it/grow it? Who has been killed over gang turf to sell it?

I think you terribly, terribly myopic and single minded on the issue.

 

[JollyRoger]

I disagree. Where did the joint come from? What crimes were commited in order to get it/grow it? Who has been killed over gang turf to sell it?

I think you terribly, terribly myopic and single minded on the issue.

Self-grown

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I disagree. Where did the joint come from? What crimes were commited in order to get it/grow it? Who has been killed over gang turf to sell it?

I think you terribly, terribly myopic and single minded on the issue.

why do people always associate weed with only lower class gangs?

it's just as prevalent in upper class neighborhoods. just not as out in the open.

remember, they gotta look christian for the neighbors.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I think taking drugs is a far worse crime than a single DUI or speeding.

That's not what I asked. What I asked was: "But the point you are making is that taking drugs demonstrates that a person isn't fit to have children is it not? Since alcohol is more harmful does it really matter that it's legal or not?"
Do you have an answer?

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges and the two are just not comparable.

You are the one who stated that alcohol and smoking don't impact a family as much as taking drugs does. I'm merely showing that the fact that one is illegal and the other not doesn't make the impact on the family any less.

Therefore if you are going to take welfare and the children from drug users, you should take it from alcohol users and smokers as well.

However, just so you know, my own military drivers license is totally dependant upon my civil drivers license - if my civil rights get revoked I can no longer drive on base or drive a military vehicle. Again, as Jolly said earlier, ramifications for behavior. If I have to pay attention to my speeding and not do drugs, then why not have ramifications for people on welfare as well? Fairs fair isnt it?

So you are condoning the imposing of compulsorary birth control and the removal of my children to a Foster home because I've driven over the speed limit and I have a student loan?

I hope you're ready to re-train when the US has to cut back it's military spending to pay for all the administration of implimenting such a plan.

Frankly, we are discussing having ramifications for people on welfare, and the one I advocate is having them prove they are drug free if they want my tax money.

Yes but the reason it was suggested by the advocates of the OP's plan was that doing drugs is harmful for the children. You've said that yourself. I say that drinking alcohol in certain amounts is equally harmful, are you going to advocate that welfare and children be removed from those people also?

I'm only trying to find how far you think this plan should stretch.