From: pierre@cs.UAlberta.CA (Pierre Honeyman)
Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:27:46 GMT

cs226a030@husky1.stmarys.ca writes:

>In article <a5qkoB16w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> Jenni Sheehey <JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>[bit o' stuff deleted]
>> 
>>> First of all, nobody's sending anyone to prison.  They're merely giving
>>> them a choice: enroll in drug treatment, or stop receiving handouts.
>> 
>> Has it occurred to you that people might want to choose to take drugs?  That
>> they might do so occasionally, without becoming addicted?
>> 

>The truth is, some druge are *highly* addictive (cocaine and crack) for

Not quite as addictive as nicotine thought, I guess nicotine should be illegal
huh?
Actually the addiction rates for cocaine and crack are not that high, wander
over to talk.politics.drugs or alt.drugs.

>example. And whether or not someone wants to do something illegal is
>irrelevant. Illegal is illegal. If people choose to do drugs, they should not
>be doing it with money given them by the government to live on. It's as simple

If they choose to spend the money they were given to live on on drugs, they 
will die.  No problem.

>as that. If I do drugs, that's bad enough. However, at least I am using my own
>money to do it. 

>>> only receive food stamps.  Second, there is a difference between being
>>> *willing* to take a drug test, and having an orgasm over the prospect.
>>> I wouldn't *like* it, but I would be happy to do it if it meant that a)
>>> people with problems would be forced to get treatment,
>> 
>> If drug use weren't illegal, you'd have Drug-users Anonymous alongside
>> Alcoholics Anonymous.  You wouldn't have to force people to get treatment,
>> they'd walk in and ask for help of their own free will.
>> 

>SOME would. Many would not.

Just like many alchoholics do not seek out AA.  Wake up.

>> No doubt during prohibition there were similar schemes requiring that those
>> found to be consuming alcohol should report to rehabilitation centres or be
>> imprisoned and forced to do so.  You look it up, it's your country's history.
>> 
>>>                                                       and b) I would
>>> know that I wasn't eating on $5 a week to finance someone else's drug
>>> habit (which I don't happen to be quite doing now, but I have done it
>>> for considerable periods of time since I started supporting myself
>>> after college in 1990).
>> 
>> Well, given that it costs more to keep addicts in jail than to give them
>> treatment for their addiction, I'd say your big concern should be stopping
>> the "war on drugs" and spending the money on rehabilitation centres.  Then
>> there'd be no money wasted on jailing drug users, and everyone who wanted
>> treatment would be able to get it.
>> 

>While I agree that more rehabilitation centres are a good idea, I wonder if a
>better idea wouldn't be to transfer inmates in present prisons around, so that
>the addicts are all in one prison. Then the system could concentrate on
>rehabilitating all the inmates in the prisons with the junkies.

Drug users shouldn't be in prison in the first place.  Not for drug use alone
anyways.  It is absolutely insane to put people in prison for using drugs.
This is what clogs up court systems and let's people comitting real crimes
go free.

>>> Peeve: People who think that people have a *right* to indulge in illegal
>>> activities.
>> 
>> Yeah.  Let's jail all those law-breakers who engage in oral sex or sex
>> outside marriage.  They have no right to have sex, so lock 'em up.
>> 

>Actually, here in Canada, I think both of those are legal. If they aren't,
>then "they" DON'T have a right to have those forms of sex. Just because you
>*think* that something should be legal, dosen't mean you have a right to do it.
>In the same token, just because something is illegal, dosen't mean it's morally
>wrong. It *IS* illegal, though. If you do something illegal, you risk
>punishment. It is that simple.

You're correct, people don't have the right to break the law when they
disagree with it.  They have a duty.  If a law is bad, and there are
*plenty* of bad laws, the population has the duty as responsible citizens
to disobey the law and force it to change.  Example, the civil forfeiture
law in the US, that law is *evil* pure and simple.

>>> ObHoney: Honey, you better not be one of those militant anti-smokers,
>>> too.  That would just be too inconsistent.
>> 
>> The rule is simple and consistent.  You can smoke, snort or inject whatever
>> the hell you want, just so long as *I* don't have to join in.
>> 
>> 
>> mathew
>> -- 
>>
>However, you run the risk of getting caught. You forgot that bit ;-)

>Later
>Mike


		Pierre