Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    235
    Keeping murder, theft and sex with minors is a benefit to society. Keeping drugs illegal may or may not be a benefit. It’s actually looking like society would benefit from decriminalization.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Sinbad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    1,378
    If I have to be drug-free to go to work, then should they not have to be drug-free to pick up their welfare check?

    Put them on a program and If they decide not to, well then too bad too sad. let's not forget who's paying for this.

  3. The Following 5 Users Like This Post By Sinbad

    awndray (09-12-2019), Lonesome George (09-14-2019), M1917 Enfield (09-12-2019), Specter Arms (09-12-2019), Zinilin (09-12-2019)

  4. #23
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    37,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinbad View Post
    If I have to be drug-free to go to work, then should they not have to be drug-free to pick up their welfare check?
    I think Ontario was the only province to try this, although I'm not sure if they ever got out of the proposal stage.
    Back in 2000 under the Progressive Conservative government (Premier Mike Harris), required people receiving welfare to take tests to see if they're on drugs. if welfare recipients refuse to take the tests, they won't get welfare. If they do take the tests and are found to be using drugs, the Ontario government will force them to enter treatment programs or they too will be cut off. The program was cancelled a year later. I don't remember why.
    I remember there was an outcry against it (violates basic human rights, grotesque abuse of power and a farce).
    Human Rights Commissioner Keith Norton said that denying welfare benefits to drug addicts is illegal, because drug addiction is "a handicap" and people can't be kicked off welfare because of it.

    One province in Canada, Ontario, is considering the use of drug tests for welfare recipients. Those with positive tests could be required to receive treatment and abstain from drug use or risk losing their benefits. Several experts from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) reviewed the scientific strengths and weaknesses of this proposal. Strengths included possible increases in employment and reduced drug use among welfare recipients; however, the group concluded that drug testing of welfare recipients or removal of welfare benefits for people who refuse treatment or relapse is not advisable for several reasons. Drug testing cannot be used to determine substance abuse or dependence, could undermine the client case manager relationship and could be legally challenged as a violation of human rights. Other drawbacks of conditional welfare include possible negative societal consequences (i.e. increased crime and health problems) and disruptions to the treatment population. The whole process is expensive and will likely result in a very marginal increase in employment because drug dependence is not a major barrier to employment.
    -- Sept 2001, https://www.researchgate.net/publica...are_recipients

    A handful of states have had something similar.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_t...are_recipients

    Fact check: Is there evidence that mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients can help drug users get off welfare?
    Australia, Jul 2018
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...pients/8948840

    Now that cannabis is legal and would not be included in 'drug addiction', I wonder if the stats/conclusions would change.
    Last edited by RangeBob; 09-12-2019 at 01:30 AM.

  5. #24
    Senior Member SwissArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    587
    So if these people can obtain recreational drugs for free, why can't I receive groceries for free? A basic need?

  6. #25
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    37,268
    Quote Originally Posted by SwissArmyMan View Post
    So if these people can obtain recreational drugs for free, why can't I receive groceries for free? A basic need?
    Funnily enough, Ontario tried that too.

    Ontario 2016. Basic Income Pilot
    https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot

    which included "food security"

  7. #26
    Senior Member LB303's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    not far enough
    Posts
    4,669
    Quote Originally Posted by SwissArmyMan View Post
    So if these people can obtain recreational drugs for free, why can't I receive groceries for free? A basic need?
    Horse face's government dropped needles from the OHIP dispensary list, so diabetics can obtain their insulin, but the means to administer it is an out-of-pocket expense. This is how they prioritize a life-saving daily necessity.

    But hey let's give needles to recreational drug users. This is institutionalized assisted suicide.

    BTW I have nothing against horses.
    "If we had a vote tomorrow I would vote, once again, to keep the Registry..." - Justin Trudeau
    "... if Canadians are to trust their government, their government needs to trust Canadians." - Justin Trudeau

  8. The Following 3 Users Like This Post By LB303

    Hidyn (09-12-2019), M1917 Enfield (09-12-2019), Waterloomike (09-12-2019)

  9. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    2,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinbad View Post
    If I have to be drug-free to go to work, then should they not have to be drug-free to pick up their welfare check?

    Put them on a program and If they decide not to, well then too bad too sad. let's not forget who's paying for this.
    I agree. Choices have consequences. Some regulation is in the public interest to minimize costs in part related to health, safety, peace, and order - seat belts and helmets are mandatory safety measures. A distant relative of my wife's has a mental condition that is a result of prolonged drug use. He gets a disability pension as a result. His pension is more than 10X the amount I get from VAC for the army screwing up my back. Our priorities are facked up.

  10. The Following 5 Users Like This Post By shootemup604

    awndray (09-12-2019), LB303 (09-12-2019), M1917 Enfield (09-12-2019), Sinbad (09-17-2019), Waterloomike (09-12-2019)

  11. #28
    Member awndray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    National Capital Region
    Posts
    9,790
    Drugs absolutely should be decriminalized. Let people decide for themselves if they want to abuse them. And if they do, tough titties. Consequently, the health care system should not be responsible for caring for those who abuse, overdose, etc. You want to ruin your life, go ahead. Cripes, people prohibiting alcohol never really worked. Why would it for drugs?

  12. The Following User Liked This Post By awndray

    Waterloomike (09-12-2019)

  13. #29
    Senior Member Waterloomike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Bantario
    Posts
    9,292
    Quote Originally Posted by awndray View Post
    Drugs absolutely should be decriminalized. Let people decide for themselves if they want to abuse them. And if they do, tough titties. Consequently, the health care system should not be responsible for caring for those who abuse, overdose, etc. You want to ruin your life, go ahead. Cripes, people prohibiting alcohol never really worked. Why would it for drugs?
    They do it now if they want to, legal, illegal, it makes no difference to them.

    But as you say, when your world comes crashing down so what?
    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

    Thomas Jefferson

  14. The Following User Liked This Post By Waterloomike

    awndray (09-12-2019)

  15. #30
    Senior Member M1917 Enfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Eastern Ontario
    Posts
    6,120
    Quote Originally Posted by awndray View Post
    Drugs absolutely should be decriminalized. Let people decide for themselves if they want to abuse them. And if they do, tough titties. Consequently, the health care system should not be responsible for caring for those who abuse, overdose, etc. You want to ruin your life, go ahead. Cripes, people prohibiting alcohol never really worked. Why would it for drugs?
    But we do prohibit Alcohol still in some communities and towns in Canada (at least seven communities in Nunavut that outright prohibits alcohol and another 11 that restrict it's sale and consumption for example) and same thing goes in a number of other countries too (mostly Muslim ones) and it seems to help control the misuse and problems associated with it in those places.

    In Alberta all of Cardston County, including the communities within its boundaries, remain dry. This includes the communities of Cardston, Magrath, and Del Bonita.

    Portions of County of Warner No. 5 that were part of the former Municipal District of Sugar City, including communities within the former municipal district, remain dry. This includes the communities of Raymond and Stirling.

    In Ontario Orillia ended prohibition in 1955. The city of Owen Sound continued to outlaw liquor well into the 1970s. Parts of west Toronto (see The Junction) did not permit liquor sales until 2000 due largely to the efforts of William Horace Temple that resulted in the ban from 1904 to 1998. James Bay Cree communities in Ontario remain dry as of 2016 (Moose Factory, Fort Albany, Kashechewan, Attawapiskat), in that there is no government store selling alcoholic products. Restriction of the transport of alcohol into the communities is although not generally strictly enforced.

    In Quebec James Bay Cree communities in Quebec, with the exception of Whapmagoostui, are still dry (Waskaganish, Eastmain, Wemindji, Chisasibi, Waswanipi, Mistissini, Oujé-Bougoumou and Nemaska). Chisasibi is unique in that it has a checkpoint for enforcing the ban on bringing alcohol into the village.

    In Manitoba the township of Steinbach did not allow the sale of liquor within city limits until recently.

    In the Yukon Old Crow is a dry Gwich'in community on the Porcupine River also Ross River is a dry community.

    In Newfoundland Natuashish voted to ban alcohol in 2008, and a vote to repeal the ban in 2010 was not successful.

    Most people also do not realise that alcohol was illegal in Prince Edward Island from 1901 to 1948 until they repealed it and under the Indian Act restrictions on serving Indians regarding liquor were not repealed for over a hundred years, until 1985.
    I live among lots of sheeple and dim witted who like to think they are good Canadians for voting Lieberal

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •