If there's no way for them to hurt themselves or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want. But what about when those drugs not only are hurting them, but are toxically hurting the same society that gave them the money in the first place? What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
If I'm a bartender and I see somebody getting way too intoxicated, to the point they are hurting themselves or others, should I keep serving them more drinks? Or even buy them more myself? Hey man, here's your car keys and a drink! Have a good night!
FYI, there actually is a tax on sugary sodas in this city... because too much can be harmful for everyone.
If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves
So they should be barred from buying anything with sugar in it because they might be diabetic.
or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want.
So they should be barred from buying beer at anywhere that sells it from a bar to a supermarket, right? Alcohol can make people violent.
What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
So they should be barred from buying anything sharp in case they have a psychotic break. No kitchen knives, no pencils.
Or... we just don't put rules on giving people money since, believe it or not, people not on assistance can have major drug problems and serious mental illness and they can spend their money however they want.
I think the argument for whether it is morally acceptable to supply someone with drugs, substances, weapons, or whatever else it is that that can kill them or others is always going to be a tough call, and we can sit here on it until the cows come home and still be in the same place honestly.
If you read the article though, it says that the measure doesn't even stop them from receiving the funds, even if they are still using. They can literally use and won't stop receiving receiving the funds, as long as they are open to treatment options.
Fine, then people should be allowed to receive their paychecks if they use drugs as long as they are open to treatment options.
Fair, right?
They should be yes. The only time mandatory pre-screening should be acceptable is if your job requires zero intoxication to legally perform your job. Like operating machinery, driving, etc. Beyond that it should only come up if there is good reason to believe that you are using and it is affecting your performance. Then you should be given the option to go through treatment before being fired comes up as an option.
You're saying the opposite of what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if drug screening is a requirement for assistance, it should be a requirement for all paychecks as well.
Otherwise, you're just punishing poor people for doing the same things people aren't poor do- get addicted to drugs.
Yes. That's literrally what the measure says. That's what we voted for.
The measure puts that same restriction on employee paychecks on all businesses in the city? Really?
Uh, where are you seeing that? That's not part of the measure, as far as I can tell.
No, it isn't. That's my point. Everyone else is given money without such preconditions. No matter how severe their drug addiction. Only the desperate have such placed on them.
Yeah and sure, its a fair point. Honestly curious though, do you think we should just cut out the middle man drug lords then and just provide the addicted with the fent directly? Like just consider it part of the welfare if that's what they want? Why force them to deal with with stuff that can be cut, adulterated, or what have you?
Considering the drug war has been a total failure, maybe we shouldn't worry about so-called drug lords. And weaning people off of an addictive substance slowly can be quite effective, so yes, giving them a specific amount of fentanyl under the care of a doctor could certainly be a treatment option. And, again, they have legitimate pain issues which they will not be able to afford to deal with because they're the poorest of the poor and those people don't get care for chronic issues they can't pay to deal with... so they'll probably just go back to using anyway.
We've been focusing on the drug war and not on the nation's healthcare issues for decades. What has it gotten us?
I only mentioned drug lords because, well, theyre just another obstacle between the addicted and the thing they're addicted to. May as well remove it, and give them a guaranteed quality product. I'd be 100% on board for treating their chronic pain issues. Nobody should have to live with that and I agree, it's a factor that could lead to them returning to using again.
I just wonder though, what happens if they want more than you can give them? How do you wean them off? Is the goal to even wean them off? What stops them from just going somewhere else and buying more than what you give them?
If they want to buy more, shouldn't that be their choice? Currently, we just imprison them for doing that. It's like arresting someone for attempting suicide. That's not going to make them less suicidal.
It's very unlikely that you will be able to get someone to quit long-term if they don't want to. So why punish them for it?
Oh I see. When you said paychecks, I thought you were referring to the welfare checks, and that they will still receive them even while using. That is what I said that the measure provides for.
And no, it doesn't apply to money earned from working at a job because the money people earn at their jobs is not taxpayer money being given with the intent to help someone get back on their feet, like welfare is.
If there's no way for them to hurt themselves or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want. But what about when those drugs not only are hurting them, but are toxically hurting the same society that gave them the money in the first place? What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
If I'm a bartender and I see somebody getting way too intoxicated, to the point they are hurting themselves or others, should I keep serving them more drinks? Or even buy them more myself? Hey man, here's your car keys and a drink! Have a good night!
FYI, there actually is a tax on sugary sodas in this city... because too much can be harmful for everyone.
So they should be barred from buying anything with sugar in it because they might be diabetic.
So they should be barred from buying beer at anywhere that sells it from a bar to a supermarket, right? Alcohol can make people violent.
So they should be barred from buying anything sharp in case they have a psychotic break. No kitchen knives, no pencils.
Or... we just don't put rules on giving people money since, believe it or not, people not on assistance can have major drug problems and serious mental illness and they can spend their money however they want.
I think the argument for whether it is morally acceptable to supply someone with drugs, substances, weapons, or whatever else it is that that can kill them or others is always going to be a tough call, and we can sit here on it until the cows come home and still be in the same place honestly.
If you read the article though, it says that the measure doesn't even stop them from receiving the funds, even if they are still using. They can literally use and won't stop receiving receiving the funds, as long as they are open to treatment options.
Fine, then people should be allowed to receive their paychecks if they use drugs as long as they are open to treatment options.
Fair, right?
They should be yes. The only time mandatory pre-screening should be acceptable is if your job requires zero intoxication to legally perform your job. Like operating machinery, driving, etc. Beyond that it should only come up if there is good reason to believe that you are using and it is affecting your performance. Then you should be given the option to go through treatment before being fired comes up as an option.
You're saying the opposite of what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if drug screening is a requirement for assistance, it should be a requirement for all paychecks as well.
Otherwise, you're just punishing poor people for doing the same things people aren't poor do- get addicted to drugs.
Yes. That's literrally what the measure says. That's what we voted for.
The measure puts that same restriction on employee paychecks on all businesses in the city? Really?
Uh, where are you seeing that? That's not part of the measure, as far as I can tell.
https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/measure-f
No, it isn't. That's my point. Everyone else is given money without such preconditions. No matter how severe their drug addiction. Only the desperate have such placed on them.
Yeah and sure, its a fair point. Honestly curious though, do you think we should just cut out the middle man drug lords then and just provide the addicted with the fent directly? Like just consider it part of the welfare if that's what they want? Why force them to deal with with stuff that can be cut, adulterated, or what have you?
Considering the drug war has been a total failure, maybe we shouldn't worry about so-called drug lords. And weaning people off of an addictive substance slowly can be quite effective, so yes, giving them a specific amount of fentanyl under the care of a doctor could certainly be a treatment option. And, again, they have legitimate pain issues which they will not be able to afford to deal with because they're the poorest of the poor and those people don't get care for chronic issues they can't pay to deal with... so they'll probably just go back to using anyway.
We've been focusing on the drug war and not on the nation's healthcare issues for decades. What has it gotten us?
I only mentioned drug lords because, well, theyre just another obstacle between the addicted and the thing they're addicted to. May as well remove it, and give them a guaranteed quality product. I'd be 100% on board for treating their chronic pain issues. Nobody should have to live with that and I agree, it's a factor that could lead to them returning to using again.
I just wonder though, what happens if they want more than you can give them? How do you wean them off? Is the goal to even wean them off? What stops them from just going somewhere else and buying more than what you give them?
If they want to buy more, shouldn't that be their choice? Currently, we just imprison them for doing that. It's like arresting someone for attempting suicide. That's not going to make them less suicidal.
It's very unlikely that you will be able to get someone to quit long-term if they don't want to. So why punish them for it?
Oh I see. When you said paychecks, I thought you were referring to the welfare checks, and that they will still receive them even while using. That is what I said that the measure provides for.
And no, it doesn't apply to money earned from working at a job because the money people earn at their jobs is not taxpayer money being given with the intent to help someone get back on their feet, like welfare is.