Washington Confiscation in Seattle

[Wombat of Doom]

I've been to Portland, it's a bum party under every bridge, and you don't think they are supported financially by society?

I do, but cutting off charity would not actually help. Desperation does not help clean up a town.

 

[American123]

I do, but cutting off charity would not actually help. Desperation does not help clean up a town.

When someone helps you float you never need to swim. No different than feeding wild animals and them becoming dependent and unable to provide for themselves.

I'll go so far as to say that the majority of the people we are talking about add a benefit of 0 to our society while they heavily detract from it while sponging up resources police, medical, social, etc that those who are productive members of society have actually paid for.

 

[awshoot]

The majority of violent crimes are behind drug use......or dealing....

In reality, violent crime is related mostly to the distribution side, the side that springs into existence under any form of prohibition and since black-marketeers act outside the law, of course they handle disputes outside the law.

The vast majority of drug users are casual users -- doctors, lawyers, accountants, carpenters, programmers, retired Navy officers, etc. etc. I've met plenty of people who enjoy smoking some bud and live perfectly normal productive lives. Same is true of people who use alcohol. There are millions upon millions of otherwise law abiding successful people who use drugs recreationally without consequence. The vast majority of social ills related to drugs in our society are not the result of drugs, they are the result of drugs' illegality and the natural creation of black markets. And I say this as a person without any dog in this fight -- I don't use drugs and I barely finish three beers per month -- the only I dog I have is the enormous waste of my hard earned tax dollars.

One of the best debates on this topic is between Glen Greenwald and a former drug czar (John Walters). Pay attention to the beginning where Greenwald outlines the numerous different costs of the drug war and compare those costs to what we get for that war:

 

[Argonaut]

In reality, violent crime is related mostly to the distribution side, the side that springs into existence under any form of prohibition and since black-marketeers act outside the law, of course they handle disputes outside the law.

The vast majority of drug users are casual users -- doctors, lawyers, accountants, carpenters, programmers, retired Navy officers, etc. etc. I've met plenty of people who enjoy smoking some bud and live perfectly normal productive lives. Same is true of people who use alcohol. There are millions upon millions of otherwise law abiding successful people who use drugs recreationally without consequence. The vast majority of social ills related to drugs in our society are not the result of drugs, they are the result of drugs' illegality and the natural creation of black markets. And I say this as a person without any dog in this fight -- I don't use drugs and I barely finish three beers per month -- the only I dog I have is the enormous waste of my hard earned tax dollars.

One of the best debates on this topic is between Glen Greenwald and a former drug czar (John Walters). Pay attention to the beginning where Greenwald outlines the numerous different costs of the drug war and compare those costs to what we get for that war:

Does not change my point.......still drug related more than related to poverty. I am a strong proponent of drug testing for welfare recipients and would like to explore people on the dole loosing there voting rights until they get off. I belive it was Jefferson that said when people learn they can vote themselves money from the government, the republic will be doomed.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

When someone helps you float you never need to swim. No different than feeding wild animals and them becoming dependent and unable to provide for themselves.

Its quite a bit different. FWIW I am quite well known among many of our homeless population as many are mentally ill. Honestly a lot of them can't swim. Do you want to starve people to death for illness because that actually is what you are saying.

 

[awshoot]

Drugs weren't as rampantly available and there were not as many illegal substances produced during the depression as there is today. ....

The most popular drug of all was wildly popular and available during prohibition -- indeed, Prohibition spawned our violent gang problem. Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[American123]

Its quite a bit different. FWIW I am quite well known among many of our homeless population as many are mentally ill. Honestly a lot of them can't swim. Do you want to starve people to death for illness because that actually is what you are saying.

If people have funds for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, tattoos, colored hair, piercings, expensive clothes, $1000 phones, expensive cable packages, etc. they have no business receiving public aid. That is what I am saying.

 

[awshoot]

Does not change my point.......still drug related more than related to poverty.

No it does -- as the evidence from Portugal demonstrates, legalizing all drugs has tremendous positive effects for society and users. Society is no longer saddled with massive legal and incarceration bills, people who use drugs see the police not as an enemy and will seek out help against violence, people who use drugs are much more likely to avail themselves of services the government provides to get them off drugs and back into the economy (yeah, many people have a vindictive mean holier-than-thou attitude about drug users, but cheaper is cheaper), and it in fact the overall usage rates of drugs in Portugal at worst remained steady but for many types, fell.

I do get that Americans are often totally against helping others so I'd be happy if we just quit the drug war and took half the tax dollars spent annually, piled it up, doused it in diesel, and burned it. At least it would be at once more effective and cheaper than what we do now.

From the Cato Institute (this ain't some hippy-dippy kumbaya outfit):
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies

 

[awshoot]

If people have funds for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, tattoos, colored hair, piercings, expensive clothes, $1000 phones, expensive cable packages, etc. they have no business receiving public aid. That is what I am saying.

Again, we can get on our judgmental high horse, or we can save money. I'd rather save money.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

If people have funds for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, tattoos, colored hair, piercings, expensive clothes, $1000 phones, expensive cable packages, etc. they have no business receiving public aid. That is what I am saying.

I said I didn't support government aid.

However, if someone has money for drugs who is homeless, it likely means they stole it.

 

[American123]

I said I didn't support government aid.

However, if someone has money for drugs who is homeless, it likely means they stole it.

I'm not insinuating you said anything, I'm saying what my perspective is.

I've got 1 heroine addict in my extended family, 1 alcoholic, and 1 alcoholic / possibly beginning to develop addict. I totally get that drugs is a huge problem. You can't help people who are so intent on self destruction. I have no sympathy for those who engage in that activity. I got to run, to softball to play

 

[Argonaut]

The most popular drug of all was wildly popular and available during prohibition -- indeed, Prohibition spawned our violent gang problem. Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia

Well.......it didn't help that is for sure but I might submit the Civil War produced a higher percentage of gangs and outlaws than prohibition.......they weren't as dramatic without tommy guns but probably more common in society. The difference was the movies and news reels became very common in the 20-30's like today's internet allowing everyone to be exposed to the most tabloid violence in human history. It started with Gutenberg and progressed from there. For millennia, people rarely knew what was going on outside of a 30 mile radius, let alone an Idaho community seeing photos of the st Valentine's Day massacre that is dwarfed by drug related violence in Chicago today. A camera lens has a very narrow field of view and the most salacious intense images always lead any reporting many times giving very false impressions of the truth.

 

[bbbass]

I do get that Americans are often totally against helping others

I don't think you mean that the way it sounds...

 

[NW Backpacker]

I do, but cutting off charity would not actually help. Desperation does not help clean up a town.

Cutting off welfare that comes from the government would help clean up a town. Government welfare isn't "charity" - it makes people dependent with no incentive to improve their lives. Why work to improve if the check automatically arrives every week? Why not stay drunk, high, etc?

Cut off that check and most of those folks will be looking for work fairly quickly. Suddenly businesses who need workers will have plenty to choose from.

Government policies have created most of the poverty and crime problems in the USA.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Cutting off welfare that comes from the government would help clean up a town. Government welfare isn't "charity" - it makes people dependent with no incentive to improve their lives. Why work to improve if the check automatically arrives every week? Why not stay drunk, high, etc?

Cut off that check and most of those folks will be looking for work fairly quickly. Suddenly businesses who need workers will have plenty to choose from.

Government policies have created most of the poverty and crime problems in the USA.

I think you are looking in the wrong place. Deinstitutionalization is probably a bigger problem. I have never equated welfare with charity. However, I do believe there probably should be a safe place for the severely mentally ill which is not the street. A lot of my patients are dual diagnosis, which means they are mentally ill with a substance abuse problem. FWIW, that substance is not always an illegal drug.

The previous poster was against any form of charity, (I define charity as willingly given which precludes taxes being involved as taxes are coerced)

 

[NW Backpacker]

I think you are looking in the wrong place. Deinstitutionalization is probably a bigger problem. I have never equated welfare with charity. However, I do believe there probably should be a safe place for the severely mentally ill which is not the street. A lot of my patients are dual diagnosis, which means they are mentally ill with a substance abuse problem. FWIW, that substance is not always an illegal drug.

The previous poster was against any form of charity, (I define charity as willingly given which precludes taxes being involved as taxes are coerced)

Agree with all that. Many who are mentally or physically ill do need assistance and I have no problem with the government helping them. It's the able-bodied sane people who don't want to work that should not get a government check, at least not for very long. Argonaut is correct - they should not be able to vote.

 

[American123]

No it does -- as the evidence from Portugal demonstrates, legalizing all drugs has tremendous positive effects for society and users. Society is no longer saddled with massive legal and incarceration bills, people who use drugs see the police not as an enemy and will seek out help against violence, people who use drugs are much more likely to avail themselves of services the government provides to get them off drugs and back into the economy (yeah, many people have a vindictive mean holier-than-thou attitude about drug users, but cheaper is cheaper), and it in fact the overall usage rates of drugs in Portugal at worst remained steady but for many types, fell.

I do get that Americans are often totally against helping others so I'd be happy if we just quit the drug war and took half the tax dollars spent annually, piled it up, doused it in diesel, and burned it. At least it would be at once more effective and cheaper than what we do now.

From the Cato Institute (this ain't some hippy-dippy kumbaya outfit):
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies

The Philippines had a different aproach somewhat recently at combating drug suppliers and users and the detriment they are to society.

 

[Argonaut]

The Philippines had a different aproach somewhat recently at combating drug suppliers and users and the detriment they are to society.

And it works every time it's tried

 

[makmayne]

The amount this displeases me I will not begin to share.

It sounds like the amount of potential violent crime this actually prevents is incalculable. It sounds like if the intent was to reduce violent crime by punishing people who have yet to commit actual crimes than a major impact on crime could be made by reducing the number of births coming out of welfare housing.

Why is it that whenever someone disagrees they backdoor it with something irrelevant. I guarantee none of the mass shootings were from welfare recipients. Stick to the subject at hand and quit with bs rhetoric

 

[Argonaut]

Why is it that whenever someone disagrees they backdoor it with something irrelevant. I guarantee none of the mass shootings were from welfare recipients. Stick to the subject at hand and quit with bs rhetoric

Mass shootings are far from the most common shootings in our society. That is mostly a red herring arguement. The big numbers come from street shootings in big cities like Chicago, Washington DC or Los Angles.