Log in

View Full Version : RJ's Law



Pages : 1 [2]

TheSexKitten
02-21-2008, 04:06 PM
Oh man, I can't even touch this issue. Way too torn.

Me too! :-\ On one hand, the goverment's money = government's right to revoke the priviledge if it's being spent on drugs.

On the other hand (which is where I'm leaning), this would mean that if someone smokes a joint, she would lose all of her government benefits and be penniless?

Also, does this apply only to SSI, or is it also to Medical/care, welfare, etc?

Would there be a distinction made between pot/shrooms and heroin/meth?

How does making a drug addict poorer really solve the root problem... which is addiction? It doesn't, and in fact I would predict a rise in homelessness and crime in urban centers.

IMO, something more along the lines of mandatory rehab would be more palatable. The issue of privacy is big, but since receiving gov. funds is really a privilege, then that might not be overstepping boundaries. But then where would THAT money come from?

I'm with Jenny, LSM, and Andygirl on this one. Way too simplistic of an answer for a way too complicated issue.

Andygirl
02-21-2008, 04:19 PM
If anyone is interested, I started this as a topic on another online community whose members I respect as educated and open-minded:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=456888

PookaShell
02-21-2008, 07:25 PM
Actually I just watched the story again and his law actually includes the stipulation that the caretaker who is using the government's assistance to fund a drug addiction - i.e. tests positive - has the option of continuing to recieve assistance and entering a drug rehabilitation program. If he or she declines rehab then she loses her benefits. I don't see how this could be hurtful.

PookaShell
02-21-2008, 07:32 PM
And... who do they think this is going to help exactly? Like if only his mother wasn't on welfare he would have been whole and happy? Like if you kick an addict down low enough you'll be able to kick the addiction out of them?

I guess they think its going to help the frustrated people who have to take a drug test to keep their employment and yet they pay taxes which pay for government programs such as welfare, etc. It offers the people who are suffering from addiction a chance at rehabilitation. What if on your taxes there was a section that described where every penny of your taxes went - and feeding drug addiction was on there? Basically it is. I understand that these people aren't monsters, that sometimes its circumstances beyond their control that led them into this lifestyle. But that doesn't make it right for us to pay for. I was born to a family of addicts. I have over 7 alcoholics in my family and thats not even touching the drug issue. No one in my family has ever gone to college. But willing to accept help from others has kept me from falling into this pattern and I think it can help pull some out of this pattern.

Jenny
02-21-2008, 07:32 PM
Because you are not going to have more healthy babies by taking away government assistance from addicts. Let's say someone says no. What then? They can be a homeless addict - exactly a situation in which one is most likely to have a healthy child. Let's say for the non-pregnant; now, instead of having a semi-indigent person addicted to drugs, you have a homeless person addicted to drugs. Who is helped by this?

You are not helping addicts by trying to punish them into not being addicts. If you could do that... well, we wouldn't have addicts.

Jenny
02-21-2008, 07:35 PM
I guess they think its going to help the frustrated people who have to take a drug test to keep their employment and yet they pay taxes which pay for government programs such as welfare, etc.
Seriously? They are considering passing this law because real people - the one's that pay their taxes - are...annoyed? Well. That is certainly a good reason. That is not really a good reason. If you don't think you can actually help people, I can't see how you can justify this.

PookaShell
02-21-2008, 07:43 PM
How is government funded rehab unjustifiable compared to government funded addiction?

Jenny
02-21-2008, 07:54 PM
How is government funded rehab unjustifiable compared to government funded addiction?
Well a) I question the legitimacy of describing welfare benefits as "government funded addiction"; you might as well say that everything people on welfare do is part of a government mandate. b) You simply cannot force people to "rehabilitate" themselves. If you could - like I said, we wouldn't have addicts. It is well established that you cannot punish addicts into not being addicts. If you could - there would be no non or poor functioning addicts in the first place; addicts do not respond rationally to that kind of reward/punishment system - sort of definition. So all you are doing is taking a very vulnerable population and turfing them. While I'm sure this kid, whose mother was an addict, is very bitter - look at the reality of what he is proposing; it would have done him no good and much harm if such a policy had been in place. The reality is that his mother would not have turned around and said "well, gosh, I'd better get my life together"; she would have still used, likely lost benefits and access to medical care and intervention, learned to distrust authority, been reluctant to seek out medical care in case it could be used against her, had even less money (welfare benefits are not a lot); her nutrition would have suffered even more; etc. etc, she would have been living on the street - how does this add up to a better situation for R.J? Like I said - before you even get to the issue of whether or not this sort of invasion of the government is justifiable you have a threshold question of "will it be useful? What will the result of this policy be?" If it is not "Yes, this is accomplish the goals we have in mind" - what's the point of doing the hard analysis?

cameron_keys
02-21-2008, 07:59 PM
It is well established that you cannot punish addicts into not being addicts.

See..I dont see it as punishing. For many people it may be the wake up call that snaps them out of it. Want your baby? Clean up. We'll even pay for you to do it. Even Andy said she would go to rehab if that were the choice presented to her, and she's been one of the most outspoken against this.

And if it doesnt...at the VERY least...one more kid will be saved from growing up in that environment.ANd if even one child can be saved..I'm for it.Sappy? Maybe. But I put the life and welfare of an innocent child that didnt make the choice to ever try drugs above the person who wants the drugs more then their child.

PookaShell
02-21-2008, 08:07 PM
I understand and respect your opinion on this Jenny. It does make alot of sense. But I dont think we should give up just on the basis that drug addicts dont want help and we cant force them. If - say - I had a child and found out theyd become addicted to heroin - yeah he might not want to be forced out of his addiction - but I'd sure as hell do my best to try. All of these addicts were at some point someone's child and someone gave up on them. That doesn't mean society has to give up on them too. Themselves and their children deserve the chance to clean up - whether they want to or not.

Jenny
02-21-2008, 08:16 PM
I understand and respect your opinion on this Jenny. It does make alot of sense. But I dont think we should give up just on the basis that drug addicts dont want help and we cant force them. If - say - I had a child and found out theyd become addicted to heroin - yeah he might not want to be forced out of his addiction - but I'd sure as hell do my best to try. All of these addicts were at some point someone's child and someone gave up on them. That doesn't mean society has to give up on them too. Themselves and their children deserve the chance to clean up - whether they want to or not.
I agree with you (isn't it nice - all this agreement going around?) but I don't think the options are mandatory, random drug testing and being turfed from welfare benefits or "giving up on them." I mean - okay. First thing. Drug rehab facilities are not available for the asking - at least in most places. So, in order to use this law we would need to make more facilities/places available. Is there... some reason that these should not be currentl available on a voluntary basis? Doesn't it seem... a little strange that while spaces cannot be made for a pregnant woman who wants voluntarily to enter rehab, but space will be made when it becomes punitive? Maybe we should actually start with those who want to enter rehab? Point being - throwing a punitive and ineffective policy into place on the grounds that it is "better than nothing" when it is, in fact, not better than nothing is not really a better idea than coming up with one that does work. This effectively makes the tax payers you alluded to earlier feel much better about the whole thing, while not helping the actual addicts or their children - born or unborn - at all.

Cam - it sounds nice, but it is not the reality of addiction, particularly of indigent addicts. And one of the things in my last post was that "the children" aren't really helped by cutting their parents off welfare.

PookaShell
02-21-2008, 08:31 PM
I get that, too. ^^^

I agree there could be better ways to solve this problem. But there already are alot of programs that offer free drug rehabilitation - at least around here there are. But an addicts mind is altered. Obviously...clearly not all of them are just monsters who enjoy leaving their children without food so they can have a fix. If they were in their right mind they would probably seek help. But they aren't so alot of them don't. A reality check of you have to attempt to clean your life up if you want to keep your income - the same reality check that a functioning drug addict who gave a positive drug test at work - may not be the only or the perfect solution. But I do think it has potential.

StrawberrySwitchblade
02-21-2008, 10:11 PM
The sad fact is that some addicts would gladly choose their drug over someone that they love. They do it all the time. This is well known. Some just cannot be helped. :-\

Jenny
02-21-2008, 10:20 PM
But there already are alot of programs that offer free drug rehabilitation - at least around here there are.
Oh, there are here too. But there are also capacities and waiting lists. Another fact is that many people who want to go into rehab are turned away. (Interesting case up here, many years ago, in which they wanted to detain a young, pregnant substance abuser in a treatment facility - the dissent which wanted to uphold the detention didn't once comment on the fact that she had, in fact, sought treatment earlier in her pregnancy and been turned away. They had no room for her until they wanted to detain her against her will).


But an addicts mind is altered. Obviously...clearly not all of them are just monsters who enjoy leaving their children without food so they can have a fix. If they were in their right mind they would probably seek help. But they aren't so alot of them don't. A reality check of you have to attempt to clean your life up if you want to keep your income - the same reality check that a functioning drug addict who gave a positive drug test at work - may not be the only or the perfect solution. But I do think it has potential.
Unfortunately... again, this isn't the reality. I mean, you don't become an semi-indigent addict because you have all this judgment and ability to prioritize things - even things like income - over your addiction. If that was the case - people wouldn't lose their jobs because of addictions. People wouldn't suffer from addictions - when they started affecting their lives negatively, people would just stop using. The "reality check" you want to infer just is not effective or else they likely wouldn't be addicts on government assistance in the first place.

Andygirl
02-21-2008, 10:28 PM
Even Andy said she would go to rehab if that were the choice presented to her, and she's been one of the most outspoken against this.

I said that in a response to the question of the hypothetical government demand, have your child taken away, or go to rehab. In no way do I think the government should be telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies. And I would never be in favor of a policy as ridiculous as the one being proposed. I would be extremely resistant to anyone making demands about what I do in my personal life.

How about this? We take away assistance from overweight people, smokers, the unemployed, the mentally ill, anyone deemed "immoral" by the powers that be. Where does it stop? Some might say that an obese person sets a terrible example for their children, and it's tantamount to abuse when they raise them with terrible habits, resulting in diabetes, hypertension, and many other obesity related ailments. It's no different than what we are talking about here, but if it was suggested we take away these people's benefits there would be outrage.

Again, show me a study that indicates this sort of program would actually culminate in positive change. I would need to see a scientific study that states that this type of legislation would actually make any positive changes at all. Yes, the problem needs to be addressed, but in a way that would actually help people. In order for that to happen, people need to take the TIME to study the cause and effect instead of jumping on a knee jerk reaction to the problem.

Here's a link to an article about something very similar: http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102234389.html

PookaShell
02-21-2008, 11:22 PM
I said that in a response to the question of the hypothetical government demand, have your child taken away, or go to rehab. In no way do I think the government should be telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies. And I would never be in favor of a policy as ridiculous as the one being proposed. I would be extremely resistant to anyone making demands about what I do in my personal life.

How about this? We take away assistance from overweight people, smokers, the unemployed, the mentally ill, anyone deemed "immoral" by the powers that be. Where does it stop? Some might say that an obese person sets a terrible example for their children, and it's tantamount to abuse when they raise them with terrible habits, resulting in diabetes, hypertension, and many other obesity related ailments. It's no different than what we are talking about here, but if it was suggested we take away these people's benefits there would be outrage.

Here's a link to an article about something very similar: http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102234389.html

AndyGirl - as for the first part - I agree with what I think Cameron said that when you accept full government assistance, it might just be that you sacrificed your privacy in the way of the government finding out what you are doing with that assistance - whether that is right or not. Such as - for lack of being able to think of a better example - if one's parents were funding their child's college education and the child wasn't making grades the parents found acceptable - they submit themselves to their parents scrutiny and or threats to withhold funding until they raise their grades. It sucks but that's life sometimes.

As for the second part - you do make a really good point there. I agree with you that there is a question of where to draw the line. I guess they were just thinking in terms of severity - a child living with an obese parent on welfare is more likely to still be receiving some of the benefits as opposed to a child with a parent who is an addict. But this point is something I hadn't considered.

dangerousdiva
02-22-2008, 11:45 AM
I appreciate everyone POV and everyone has made good points.



How about this? We take away assistance from overweight people, smokers, the unemployed, the mentally ill, anyone deemed "immoral" by the powers that be. Where does it stop? Some might say that an obese person sets a terrible example for their children, and it's tantamount to abuse when they raise them with terrible habits, resulting in diabetes, hypertension, and many other obesity related ailments. It's no different than what we are talking about here, but if it was suggested we take away these people's benefits there would be outrage.


I don't think the obese or smokers have the same issues as addicts using assistance for food for their children or paying rent. As for the unemployed they have to prove weekly that they are actively looking for a job in order to receive benefits among other requirements. I don't see these people in the same category as addicts.

I don't see how someone seeking benefits while they are creating a human life shouldn't have to comply by proving they are creating a human life free of drugs.

Yes, there is voluntary state funded drug rehabilitation centers. Are they overloaded, and have long waiting lists? Yes, but so what! It doesn't mean we should give up.

Look at the Drug Court System. Addicts have a choice to enter a program or serve their time in jail. Yes, they are somewhat forced into rehabilitation but sometimes this is the intervention they need. Most addicts would never enter treatment willingly. The thought of a drug free life to the addict is usually unimaginable but drug court works. Sure, not in every case, and I know that after some have completed the program they go out and use. The systems not perfect but it is helping.

Applying this to pregnant addicts seeking assistance, even if they enter the program while they are pregnant and go back to using after, that is still a big accomplishment and limits exposure to drugs to their unborn baby.

I don't equate addiction with cancer. Yes, it's a disease but at first it was a CHOICE.

The government isn't trying to tell you what to do with your body, but putting needed requirements on the welfare system in order to protect the people it was designed to serve.


AndyGirl - as for the first part - I agree with what I think Cameron said that when you accept full government assistance, it might just be that you sacrificed your privacy in the way of the government finding out what you are doing with that assistance - whether that is right or not. Such as - for lack of being able to think of a better example - if one's parents were funding their child's college education and the child wasn't making grades the parents found acceptable - they submit themselves to their parents scrutiny and or threats to withhold funding until they raise their grades. It sucks but that's life sometimes.


I think this is a great analogy!!! The government isn't forcing their way into these peoples lives. They are invited when you seek gov. assistance.

If a pregnant addict refuses treatment, I don't think they should lose medical benefits.

Yes, this law needs some tweaking but I still think it's a good thing.

Joplin
02-22-2008, 08:34 PM
*I use "you" as in general, not directed at anyone in particular*

For the "what if some one smokes one joint because it's there" scenario, thats easy. Don't smoke it. Just because its there for free does not mean you should do it when your welfare is on the line. If your not an addict and are willing to risk being homeless for an occasional high, your just stupid.

If you're an addict that is willing to do anything to keep your addiction (not trying to get help, using despite the fact that if caught you will be homeless and hungry, losing your family ect.) you shouldn't have children. I would hate to know what seedy situation you would be willing to put them for your addiction. Children should come second behind the parents drug habit. They should be getting food, shoes, books with any extra money that doesn't cover rent, not a high parent.

AudreyLeigh
02-22-2008, 08:41 PM
Actually, I know that in California at least, if your baby tests positive for drugs at birth you automatically lose custody to CPS.

You have to enter some kind of state mandated treatment to get your baby back and have to deal with CPS interference and random drug testing for at least a year.

Unfortunately, by this point the damage is done.

Another unfortunate thing is it doesnt work. Really, I know someone who has had 2 babys drug addicted, got both kids back and is still on drugs and living with her Parolee boyfriend.

I like the idea of RJs law but it aint gonna happen and it sure wont work as planned.