From: cs226a030@husky1.stmarys.ca
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:16:09 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: St. Mary's University, Halifax, N.S., Canada

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
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
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.

> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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