- Jul 26, 2010
- 2,969
- 4
- 171
So.....someone should be free to not wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle or horse, and get injured, and then get health care for the rest of their life that they can't afford and costs the state from 150,000 dollars to 2 million dollars a year, but someone who gets a couple thousand dollars a year worth of welfare can't do drugs....
I think it's kind of hypocritical to rejoice at this law, frankly. I understand that it will be extremely popular because of stereotypes about who gets welfare. I also understand that any law that restricts someone's OWN freedoms, would be greeted with the usual:
'Oh this is going to bankrupt the state, this is so much red tape, this is a slippery slope and pretty soon Big Brother will be telling me I can't have a beer, or that I have to have a barcode in my skull, that is so unfair to take away my freedom to decide, not that I want to do drugs but I have the right to decide, the drugs I want to use are harmless, they can't possibly adminster such a law fairly, how will they do it without corruption and errors, people will cheat the test by bringing in apple juice, the test isn't reliable etc etc etc etc', but the logic here is:
If it's 'something self destructive I want to do, I need the freedom to do it, if it's something self destructive someone else wants to do, they need to stop'.
I understand the entrenched belief that 'all those welfare cheaters are on drugs' as well as the other unspoken implication of who is on welfare, and the don't give 'em welfare if they're on drugs', too, but I also don't think that they really are. The average welfare recipient is male, married, twenty eight, white, and has 2 children in marriage.
I think it's kind of hypocritical to rejoice at this law, frankly. I understand that it will be extremely popular because of stereotypes about who gets welfare. I also understand that any law that restricts someone's OWN freedoms, would be greeted with the usual:
'Oh this is going to bankrupt the state, this is so much red tape, this is a slippery slope and pretty soon Big Brother will be telling me I can't have a beer, or that I have to have a barcode in my skull, that is so unfair to take away my freedom to decide, not that I want to do drugs but I have the right to decide, the drugs I want to use are harmless, they can't possibly adminster such a law fairly, how will they do it without corruption and errors, people will cheat the test by bringing in apple juice, the test isn't reliable etc etc etc etc', but the logic here is:
If it's 'something self destructive I want to do, I need the freedom to do it, if it's something self destructive someone else wants to do, they need to stop'.
I understand the entrenched belief that 'all those welfare cheaters are on drugs' as well as the other unspoken implication of who is on welfare, and the don't give 'em welfare if they're on drugs', too, but I also don't think that they really are. The average welfare recipient is male, married, twenty eight, white, and has 2 children in marriage.
Last edited:

