posted
I think it'll be good if handled differently.
I think a year is too a lil' too harsh. I think a month sounds more apporpriate for the first fail. 3 months for a second fail and 6 months max. Current bneneficiaries should be tested once a year except for those who've failed which will be earlier. You'd have to be tested if you're a new applicant and should be a compulsory requirement to obtain the dole.
Wonder what will be the reprocussion of this. The failiers have gotta survive somehow (human instinct). Rise in criminal activity maybe?
-------------------- "When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit" - Dr Emmit L. Brown (Back To The Future) Posts: 7894 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm more with a "handle it differently" perspective. This notion has been proposed in a couple of states - Florida comes to mind first.
I like to believe that rational people (these are hard to distinguish in the general population) deserve a second chance and a fair warning. I think that dealing with the first infraction should be conducted rather leniently; perhaps, by simply cutting the amount of money given to the recipient but I think that the time of this should be pretty well extended - 6 months, maybe; the offender (for lack of a better word) should feel the pinch and contemplate the consequences of further transgressions.
I think the severity should escalate rapidly. Second-timers are completely denied for 6 months. The third offense ("You just don't learn, do you?) might entail loss of ANY governmental aid for a year. Certainly, the fourth time would be an absolute "You're on your own, bub".
Ideally, there would be a drug test every time a recipient picked up a check. I understand that this would be overly burdensome to any agency and is, therefore, unrealistic.
FootLongSub Zero makes a good point that this has the potential to increase criminality. Still, in the world of human beings that I know, many, if not most, will respond to the pressure by finding a way to provide for themselves by offering legal goods and/or services to people willing to pay for them.
I hope this hasn't turned into a "ramble". Go easy on me for this one; I'm shooting from the hip with a gut-load of bourbon.
Posts: 5067 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds good to me. I don't want to pay for anyone's drug habits. Especially if they're in such bad shape that they need help from the government only to use that money for drugs. Could increase crime, but that's why I have an arsenal. Put a gun the hand of everybody and there probably wouldn't be much crime anyway.
-------------------- And today we're all brothers Tonight we're all friends A moment of peace in a war that never ends Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't support that. Drugs are a form of escapism. If a guy who has no job wants to smoke cannabis to have a little escape, then I don't think there is anything wrong with that even if he/she is spending their dole money on the stuff.
Well okay, maybe for class A drugs there should be some kind of system in place, perhaps a forced stint in rehab?
Just because someone doesn't have a job doesn't mean they should be deprived of all the (cheap) good things in life. Some of my highly educated, hardworking, (should be) highly employable friends couldn't get jobs because the job market went down hill through no fault of their own.
And the problem is if these people don't have money for drugs and are addicted, what are they going to do? Theft? Prostitution? Homelessness?
Disclaimer: I was unemployed for years after graduating university. Had no money, set my own business up and now I never have to worry about money again, I'm anti-drugs but smart enough to realise it's an addiction and that a lot of people simply enjoy them. But I like paying my taxes as they help keep the country I'm living in quite a nice one.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Talos: Put a gun the hand of everybody and there probably wouldn't be much crime anyway.
hahaha very American of you
I have to say I would disagree - put a device for killing in the hands of everyone (over 18 presumably) might be the scariest thing I have ever heard...different cultures, I suppose, dude...
I'm sure you know your way around a gun, you're in a minority there, though.
posted
I look at it this way. Most people aren't out committing crimes. But those who do are gonna prey on the weakest. If everyone had a way to defend themselves then criminals would think twice about what they might do. On the other hand, people who think guns should be banned ought to get held up themselves. If the government outlawed guns do you really think criminals are gonna obey that law?
Furthermore, there would be less criminals in prison using up tax payers dollars because they're either not committing crimes or got killed in the act.
The unfortunate truth is you're right about me being a minority knowing my way around a gun.
'Murica!
-------------------- And today we're all brothers Tonight we're all friends A moment of peace in a war that never ends Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Talos: [QB] I look at it this way. Most people aren't out committing crimes. But those who do are gonna prey on the weakest. If everyone had a way to defend themselves then criminals would think twice about what they might do. On the other hand, people who think guns should be banned ought to get held up themselves. If the government outlawed guns do you really think criminals are gonna obey that law?
That does work to an extent.
People who are caught with guns here get heavy sentences. Sometimes the length of the crime they committed. For the criminal the risk is doubled and it works as a preventative measure.
Where I live someone was arrested when they were found driving with a shutgun wrapped in some bedsheets. He was on his way to commit a crime apparently, but was caught beforehand. If guns were legal he would have been allowed to carry on and commit his crime.
The way I see this is guns are illegal in this country and we don't have many gun crimes. We have similar crime levels, but not gun crime. Banning guns does work. (or at least requiring strict licenses as we do)
Posts: 219 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Talos: Put a gun the hand of everybody and there probably wouldn't be much crime anyway.
Would be a lil' scary to me.
I use public transport alot and I've seen people with volatile attitudes arguing over petty things. To me, 'unstable mindset + Loaded Gun = Hulk Smash' (lol... is the answer that just came to mind) or Anger or Uncontrollable Rage. I haven't driven for a while and I remember 'Road Rage' is another factor amongst drivers.
Some people do stupid things in 'spur of moment' situations but regret it later and regreting things after you've just killed someone.......... You could just say "well that was his problem"....
Another situation maybe: You're on a train alone and next stop a dude who seems wired on drungs takes a seat across from you, holding his gun in his hand, rocking back n forth in his seat mutting angry words, (not at you)...... Sorta like... You're at Burger King enjoying a meal when a Giant Hornet hangs around your table buzzing it's loud wings....
This is just me blabbering on but tryin' to build a situation of a possible 'it's either me or you'....
-------------------- "When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit" - Dr Emmit L. Brown (Back To The Future) Posts: 7894 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Talos: I look at it this way. Most people aren't out committing crimes. But those who do are gonna prey on the weakest. If everyone had a way to defend themselves then criminals would think twice about what they might do. On the other hand, people who think guns should be banned ought to get held up themselves. If the government outlawed guns do you really think criminals are gonna obey that law?
Furthermore, there would be less criminals in prison using up tax payers dollars because they're either not committing crimes or got killed in the act.
The unfortunate truth is you're right about me being a minority knowing my way around a gun.
posted
I realize that countries with strict gun laws have less gun crimes, but I don't think that would be the case with America. I don't know what values people have in those countries, but the values people have in America are getting increasingly worse. Crime has gone up in states and cities with strict gun laws because criminals don't obey laws.
-------------------- And today we're all brothers Tonight we're all friends A moment of peace in a war that never ends Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "Nina, this is my house, you work for me, and I want to suck your toes." -Big Trouble (2002) Posts: 1855 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
heck yeah, drug testing would be great. Then more than half the girls who model their feet for me would fail those test and receive less dole money from the gov't and that would have a ripple effect of them being more amenable to the piddly wages that I offer them to let me have my way with their feet!
It'd be win win for all and plus these people would be more willing to do a good day's hard work for a change. This legislation is primed to help people build character! More drug tests, less dole money!!
quote:Originally posted by Talos: I realize that countries with strict gun laws have less gun crimes, but I don't think that would be the case with America. I don't know what values people have in those countries, but the values people have in America are getting increasingly worse. Crime has gone up in states and cities with strict gun laws because criminals don't obey laws.
No no no. In the UK, for example, guns are very tightly controlled. You cannot enter the country with a firearm, for example.
Tight controls in cities does not work. You can travel out of town, buy a firearm and bring it back no problem.
And the whole "criminals don't obey the law" fallacy always has people forgetting one little detail; if you own a firearm and no license, that's a crime and you'll be prosecuted. Automatically you've got bad guys facing jail time before they've even committed a crime.
One example of that from my neck of the woods recently, a car that had a rear brake light out was pulled over by the police. Normally they'd be given a warning and be sent on their way. The police found two guns underneath a blanket on the backseat. It later turned out they were driving to a farm to rob. That wasn't long ago too. If guns weren't banned they would have been sent on their way to commit their crime, possibly even murdering the farmer. The idea was they had to take guns because farmers here are allowed weapons. Could have been very messy.
The US does need stricter gun laws. In the same way you need a license for a vehicle, why not a weapon? In the same way that you have a heavy vehicle license you need to retake a test to prove your mentally fit, physically able and capable, why not for heavier firearms? One day this will happen, but probably only after more mass shootings. I can already see the inforgraphics that demonstrate how many men, women and children have been killed to get to a state where guns are controlled (not banned, which wouldn't work).
Posts: 219 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Tongue]](tongue.gif)
![[Cheers]](graemlins/cheers.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
