Tennessee Drug Tests Welfare Applicants, Discovers Less Than One Percent Use Drugs

[ro4eva]

That is not my belief and I was not using the definition of drug abuse that you dislike, which I had picked up on from reading studies. Contrariwise, heeding your complaints and using the term to mean one who uses drugs without regard to their well-being has confused you profoundly.

Use the normal definition and stop complaining.

In my opinion, an appropriate term for someone who persists in consuming a mind altering substance despite the obvious fact that it is (and has been) progressively ruining whatever life he has left (and providing him or her with little - if any - benefits) would include either of the following examples:

- a drug addict
- a habitual drug user

In contrast, an appropriate term for someone who occasionally partakes in the consumption of a mind altering substance (regardless of its legal status) for whatever reason could include (but not be limited to) either of the following examples:

- a recreational drug consumer
- a weekend warrior
- an occasional drunk, toker, tweaker, smacker, skier, smoker, roller, etc.
- a smoker who only smokes when consuming alcoholic beverages
- a free sample skier

Again though, I find the term "drug abuse" and its derivatives (e.g. "drug abuser, drugs of abuse, abusable drugs," and so forth) to be rather insulting to victims of actual cases of physical abuse, where they (as human beings with rights) did not consent to being abused. And many of these actual victims of abuse have resorted to occasional or habitual drug use in order to temporarily escape their distressful sober state of mind.

Abuse normally implies that someone was victimized. Since drugs cannot be victimized, the term "drug abuse" comes across as a fanatical prohibitionist reference to a consumer of certain drugs without a doctor or government permission slip.

I see prison has literally destroyed your life.

Not only did prison succeed in royally fucking up some parts of my life which I consider to be very important, but it also nearly got me killed a few months after I was released.

It was because of my new connections made in prison that I ended up one day with a sawed off shotgun aimed at my left temple - the guy ready to blow a hole in my noodle.

The only reason he didn't pull the trigger - according to him - is because I wasn't personally involved in an incident in which his cousin was beaten into a coma due to a lot of cash owed.

 

[T. Calderone]

Didn't they stop it in Florida because it was unconstitutional? But it's only for people getting cash benefits. I knew so many people who would sell their $200 cards every month for half the price to buy drugs.

 

[pmoseman]

Didn't they stop it in Florida because it was unconstitutional? But it's only for people getting cash benefits. I knew so many people who would sell their $200 cards every month for half the price to buy drugs.

Would you buy those cards?

In my opinion, an appropriate term for someone who persists in consuming a mind altering substance despite the obvious fact that it is (and has been) progressively ruining whatever life he has left (and providing him or her with little - if any - benefits) would include either of the following examples:

- a drug addict
- a habitual drug user

In contrast, an appropriate term for someone who occasionally partakes in the consumption of a mind altering substance (regardless of its legal status) for whatever reason could include (but not be limited to) either of the following examples:

- a recreational drug consumer
- a weekend warrior
- an occasional drunk, toker, tweaker, smacker, skier, smoker, roller, etc.
- a smoker who only smokes when consuming alcoholic beverages
- a free sample skier

Again though, I find the term "drug abuse" and its derivatives (e.g. "drug abuser, drugs of abuse, abusable drugs," and so forth) to be rather insulting to victims of actual cases of physical abuse, where they (as human beings with rights) did not consent to being abused. And many of these actual victims of abuse have resorted to occasional or habitual drug use in order to temporarily escape their distressful sober state of mind.

Abuse normally implies that someone was victimized. Since drugs cannot be victimized, the term "drug abuse" comes across as a fanatical prohibitionist reference to a consumer of certain drugs without a doctor or government permission slip.

Ah yes, now I can see what you're saying. It is offensive to an unrelated group, kind of like the word "sand nigger" does not mean they are people made out of sand.

Whoever they are, abusing the welfare system to get drugs can make welfare for an impoverished community look like a wasted effort.

Not only did prison succeed in royally fucking up some parts of my life which I consider to be very important, but it also nearly got me killed a few months after I was released.

It was because of my new connections made in prison that I ended up one day with a sawed off shotgun aimed at my left temple - the guy ready to blow a hole in my noodle.

The only reason he didn't pull the trigger - according to him - is because I wasn't personally involved in an incident in which his cousin was beaten into a coma due to a lot of cash owed.

I would be more upset with the guy holding a shotgun next to my head.

 

[T. Calderone]

Would you buy those cards?

No, I was getting my own and needed it for food shopping. The people I knew that did it were mainly crack users.

 

[Crankinit]

Seems pretty stupid. We don't have crack in Australia, but from what I know about it I can't imagine $100 of it would last someone more than a few hours.

 

[ro4eva]

Whoever they are, abusing the welfare system to get drugs can make welfare for an impoverished community look like a wasted effort.

You know what? I think you have a really good point here.

Believe it or not, I'm not familiar with the welfare system (either in North Carolina, or Ontario), so forgive me if I'm a little off with the following example, but let's say that there is an effort being made to supply citizens in need with an income in order for them to be able to afford what are considered to be the bare necessities.

One person supposedly in need proceeds to sign several welfare forms which probably clearly state that by putting his signature on there, that he agrees not to use any of the money given to him by welfare in order to purchase illicit items (including street drugs).

He ends up nodding that he'll agree, and signs.

Once he receives his first check, the man immediately goes to his dealer and uses the money to purchase some heroin.

Well guess what - he doesn't deserve another penny from welfare.

If I had to deal with such a situation, I'd be very upset with such an individual.

I understand that he may be addicted to smack, however, he signed off that he wouldn't use the money to buy illicit items. If desperate to avoid withdrawal, would a methadone clinic not have sufficed (assuming one is in the area)? I know from lots of personal experience in withdrawal countless times that it's a tough situation - it really is, but again, he signed, and an exception cannot be made even if they wanted to as it's illegal AFAIK.

In fact, welfare should confiscate the remaining cash he has left from the first check and give it to someone who will actually follow the rules.

Unfortunately, this may result in him resorting to robbery, prostitution, or even drug trafficking in order to support his physical dependency.

That being said, keeping in mind the contractual obligations which the man broke, this example (in my opinion) is definitely abuse of the welfare system.

Edit - If however, there is no stipulation regarding using welfare money to buy a fix, then, it's a little more complicated. However, it seems obvious that there would be such a stipulation.

I would be more upset with the guy holding a shotgun next to my head.

I was far too scared shitless and somewhat in shock to be upset.

One wrong word from me and game over.