My two cents were that people addicted to drugs will choose it over food. People with families addicted to drugs will choose drugs over their kids. People ADDICTED to drugs are ADDICTED; The drug habit is not a voluntary one all the time. These people need rehab... or to be left the fuck alone until they commit a real crime. To have the government draw this line in the sand, saying you may have to choose between groceries and your addiction, is wrong. The restrictions on qualification are stringent as is, and often make the process difficult. I believe the process of selection (which I would support restricting further if abuse is a problem) weeds out most people who don't really need the assistance. Food is not the thing to take away from someone you want to punish. This country is wealthy enough that every American should eat, in my view.
He had a good point, though. Why should he pay for the food of someone else who obviously has money for drugs? I kind of ambushed him at this point. I reminded him he's drinking beer right now, the day after spending state money on groceries himself. It wasn't cheap beer either, it was freakin awesome. With 1 real income and a 18m old child, he qualified.
His response was that beer was legal. Very true. Ignoring that this person used to get high a lot back in the day, I ineloquently tried to explain my point of view until the subject wandered off to something else.
So, now to sum up and spin the story to my liking:
By rationalizing that beer is legal and illegal drugs are not, and therefor you are more deserving of assistance, you are making a judgement of morality and hiding behind the precedent of said established morality.
Since most drugs leave the system rather quickly, the drug users most heavily affected are pot-heads. There are fewer heroin users on EBT I'm guessing. Meth cleans out faster. Crack, too. You could still use them and and pass a pee test every month. Lovable stoners are the most numerous drug users who's habit sticks around for pee tests and is affordable at low income levels. They also seem burdened with the stigma of laziness, a key argument against entitlements. We're gonna run with this idea. There are others, but this one is a pretty good median to ride I think.
Lets not hide behind kids; our stoner has no child. She is 22 and in college with a part time job (without a part time job or child, you can't get food stamps in this state while in school). Through careful budgeting and scraping by, she's carved out a nice little niche, and now things change. Suddenly, she either has to fail a state prescribed urine test, or leave the $200/month EBT support behind. Quitting isn't even an option since pot is going to be in her system for her next appointment regardless. You weed out a working student, trying to better themselves or their country, from a system designed to temporarily support people as they try to better themselves. That makes sense why? Because that person spends 25 bucks on a bag of weed? If it was really about the money, you would go after people who buy beer or sugary junk food too.
Lets say she does quit smoking pot. Does the need for an "escape" or stress relief mechanism just go away? Will she go to a psychologist and talk out her issues and live happily ever after? Probably not, since years of psychotherapy help slowly and cost a lot (remember she quit her recreational drug for food... she's broke). Maybe she'll exercise instead! This being America, lets give that a 1 in 10 chance of happening. That pot is going to be replaced with any number of legal, harmful alternatives. Maybe it's from the script pad at the local free clinic where they deal anti-depressants instead of illegal drugs (expensive!). Maybe it's crack, so she can pass a pee test (brain damage!). Most likely, though, a 22yr old who just quit hanging out with her stoner friends (bad influence) is going to turn to alcohol. Cheap, addictive, liver-rotting alcohol <3...
This social lubricant is legal and helps people meet new people (who drink) and she's soon in a new clique full of greater social pressure to get "messed up" (bars, parties, hangover honors). She gets pregnant one night and dies by coat hanger. Or she burns her face off with 151 and her drunk friends take her to wal-mart instead of the hospital. Whatever, she still got every dime of her EBT. Things went from bad to worse via government intrusion on issues of nonviolent morality.
If you'd like to argue the merits of alcohol as an alternative to pot, I would refer you to a few sources in pot's corner:
Common sense
Science
History
So, by drug testing this person you've spent money on drug tests, ended a promising career, and/or created a junkie 9 times out of 10. You've taken a harmless drug and replaced it with harmful alternatives.
So what? Whats the point of my admittedly dramatic example? It's not the only story! WTF!?
Unforeseen consequences come up from every action taken, especially in government. When the foreseeable consequences however offer little to no positives and numerous negatives, it's plain to see the true driving force behind the prohibitionists: Moral ethnocentrism, ignorance of scientific alternatives, and a disconnect with the religion that inspired the former. Jesus would be a socialist, people! Everyone would give freely and infinitely of themselves, regardless of morality, creed, or social status. We'd all be broke and happy together, like a hippy commune. Love, and sharing fish, and playing out on the water, and singing songs together about love and sharing and water. Just look at the haircut we give him in our pictures!
Doubt that? Think you seen Jesus driving a truck that says "8 MPG BITCH!" on the window and "Reaganomics" on the bumper? I would ask you check your facts again, far right fundamentalist... I'd welcome a bible verse throwing match... I love those.
No comments:
Post a Comment