I read about these laws and proposed legislation and etc. and I feel slightly ill. The reasoning behind these bills is that tax payers shouldn't have to subsidize illegal drug use (true statement) and these measures will save money. What I see is children being forgotten. So, I did some research to educate myself on some of my reservations about it.
In Florida, they DID think of the children. Slightly. The recipient who has just tests positive for drug use can name another individual to receive benefits on behalf of their children. Hmmmm.... No problem there. Right? The ADDICT is allowed to name this individual. Not an independent case worker from CPS or a child advocate appointed by the state. Shouldn't these children be placed in a foster home? Perhaps BEFORE their parent is dragged off to jail (ok... I didn't read about follow up on this, but that is another reservation I have about this law... there seems to be little follow up).
AND what happens to the addict here? Are they arrested? Sent to rehab? What? I can find nothing about what the consequences are BESIDES losing government benefits. Either option is costly at best, ineffective at worst. Jail? Well, they can eat there. Hell, depending on the prison, you can even get your drug of choice there. But how does this give us a better situation than we have? No rehabilitation is guaranteed. Rehab? Costly. And if a forced rehab, again no guarantee of success. There IS a problem that needs to be addressed here... But taking welfare away alone is not addressing it. It is IGNORING the problem and allowing it to continue. I wish I had an answer here. I do not. Addicts are gonna be around as long as humans walk the earth, not just to illegal drugs, but to alcohol, gambling, etc, etc, etc.
I have also looked into the numbers of said laws. It saves taxpayers money, correct? It's not all that easy. The following blog entry was the easiest break down of the numbers that I found, but all of my research into practical numbers supports his math:
http://my.firedoglake.com/thingscomeundone/2011/01/18/the-true-cost-of-kentuckys-drug-testing-everyone-on-welfare/
I did not go into all my opinions and feelings on this matter. It seems that if I do, I seem ignorant. Here I will say what I feel. I am safe in my own blog. :) I am against it. I feel that we live in a society and we have a responsibility to those who don't have a voice (for instance, children). I also feel in order to create a world that I would be proud to hand over to my children, we have to help those who are vulnerable better themselves and strengthen themselves (in this case, drug rehab??). In my expressing my opinion I do not feel that I expose my ignorance, but I feel that I share a piece of myself with you. If you feel as though you need to tell me that my opinion is wrong, so be it. I will never do that to you. Opinions are wonderful. No matter what side you stand on them.
GGC
I'm taking a break from FB because of BS like this and other crap. (like the unemployed are all just lazy, therefore I'm a lazy fuck but then everyone says "OH WE DIDN'T MEAN YOU WHEN WE SAID ALL!")
ReplyDeleteFB (or at least most of the people in this area on it that use it) has become a virtual mouthpiece of whatever FAUX news or the sacred and holy tea party wants everyone to think. And if they can't make you think about what you're saying, then they've won. Your arguement against is perfect, but because it's more than 100 characters the target audience for propaganda will never read it.
I made a similar argument that the tests were being paid for by the recipiant, and got attacked for it, even after explaining that someone had to choose between paying for the test and feeding their kids-well that's tough, they're lazy.
Luckily, I just don't see this BS on twitter or tumblr-which for what I can tell lean more center or left.
1. Opinions are not always wonderful, but having the right to express them is.
ReplyDelete2. You've enlightened me to some of the less-than-spectacular parts of the legislation in Florida...it's pretty wretched. I was basing my FB arguments on what I was finding about the Kentucky law, where it seems that the bipartisan legislation has the intent of trying to stop drug-using parents from using their government assistance to buy drugs rather than provide for their kids. I've seen people do it, and it's dispicable, and it's why these people aren't my friends anymore.
The logic in the Kentucky bill is that if the child is already suffering, how is forcing random (that is the KEY in the Kentucky bill, it's RANDOM drug testing) drug testing, and focusing that testing entirely on those who receive ALL their income from the State (another key difference, it isn't a "you can't get your aid unless you pay to go have a drug test" bill from what I can tell, it's a "oh you've not earned a dime in the last year and you want more aid, well, you've been selected for a random drug test" type bill) going to hurt them more than they already are?
3. Your concerns about follow-up are indeed valid concerns. They are my concerns too, and would be if Indiana decided to follow suit. What happens when a single parent fails a drug test when applying for aid? Do they go to jail? Is their child taken away by CPS? Do they get put into rehab? What happens? These are valid questions and worth looking deeper into, but the media (from Huffpost to Faux to NPR to whomever) isn't much asking them from what I can tell.
4. I don't think you're ignorant, and if you think that I think you're ignorant, then you think poorly of me for thinking that. I clarified that once already, but I thought I'd clarify it again. I'd also like to point out that my major beef with these debates hasn't been that you (or others') concerns were wrong, but rather that the arguments were flawed. The "thinkofthechildren" argument is a new type of logical fallacy that can be used to argue for or against any piece of legislation. When combined with other logical fallacies such as the "slippery slope" and other similarly flawed types of rhetoric from our friends the "Sock" and Ted, I simply couldn't stand idly by and let it go on without trying to call a spade a spade. It's why I got involved, it's why I said what I did, and it's why I could care less who disagreed with me. I expected to be disagreed with. However, I will not sit around and watch people argue fallacy. Bring up facts, concerns, opinions, ideas, questions, etc. But when people start throwing around fallacious rhetoric like it's water, the argument drowns in its own narcissism.
I don't count you among those who were necessarily throwing out logical fallacies...and the fact that Wil followed suit with similar fallacious arguments, I had to say my peace and leave it at that, and so if you feel any of that was directed at you, well my bad. My only issue with your argument was that you jumped in just because I mentioned your name in passing (in relation to nothing having to do with anything but to establish my stance on not being on some side that doesn't care about the children), and then insisted that the law hurts children without backing it up, completely ignoring every word I'd said and somehow making it look like I didn't care about children. Now you have made a compelling case as to why you think it hurts children, so I have no further issues with your argument, and I reiterate again, that you most certainly don't look ignorant.
5. You're my friend, and I love you, and I think that you were right to blog this, rather than FB this, based on what has happened the last two times I've seen this debate on FB.
6. You re-added my blog wrong, you added a feed to the comments for one of my posts instead of the blog. Technology + Ellen = fail. :(
ReplyDelete>9000. I will see you tomorrow at some point and we can haz coffees? Mmmmm!
8. ???
9. Profit