Welfare for Weed: Colorado Allows EBT Withdrawals at Pot Shops

[Clementine]

Those are adults who grew up from being children.

How would you like it if you lived in a dysfunctional household growing up, yet despite applying yourself honestly, you never became successful because people who lived from functional households treated you like garbage?

Then, they tell you to appreciate what you got and that society owes you nothing. However, you go on welfare, but you're demoralized, and you're unfamiliar with how to otherwise entertain yourself in order to escape problems which you didn't create in the first place.

Sounds really fair, doesn't it?

You both exaggerate and over simplify the issue. I bet most of the time, your scenario doesn't apply.

Time for tough love and throwing more money at them just keeps the cycle going.

Even children from dysfunctional homes eventually do grow up. You can only blame being born poor for so long. Many who are born poor succeed and live a normal, productive life. Of course, the ones that pull themselves up aren't exactly appreciated by the left. Instead of bashing people like Herman Cain, maybe the left should hold him up as an example to follow.

Instead, he's called a traitor, puppet, Uncle Tom or worse. I think that sort of language gives young people the impression that Cain did something wrong and they'll do the opposite of what he and others did. Why work to elevate yourself if it will make you a target for ridicule?

The only people the left holds up as heroes are those who are willing to steal from the tax payers and give to their supporters. That is wrong. Why is it that liberals teach people to hate those who succeed and worship those who merely take from one group and give to another? No wonder this country is so fucked up.

 

[Daktoria]

The reason why I ask this question is I believe the main victims here are not only the everyday taxpayers, to me that's secondary, the real victims are the welfare recipients, who I too feel compassion for. Drugs aren't a longterm or temporary solution for them. It will only make them worse off.

Sorry. I didn't see what you wrote before.

I think any form of entertainment can exacerbate the issue from people being spoiled into addiction.

What makes drugs so special?

No problem.

Well if you think drug use is benign then maybe you better do some research on the subject. I don't mean that in a condescending way.

To be clear, I don't think drug use is the only activity which isn't benign.

I'm just saying drug use shouldn't be treated differently from other activities.

People can get fat from eating too much.

People can fry their brains from playing video games or watching TV.

People can get hurt if they try extreme sports without safety equipment because they love the thrill of danger.

There are lots of self-destructive activities out there.

 

[Daktoria]

You play the hand your dealt. Their parents may have rejected them. Society is just an aggregate of indivisuals who should do the best they can; personal responsibility. If the whole world rejects you, you run with that. There are a plethora of excuses for failure - none for success!
Yes, everyone should serve their country - think not what your country can do for you, think what you can do ... No one should be buying recreational pot with other people's money.

There is no personal responsibility by default. People are responsible for their actions, but people don't act to give birth to themselves. If anything, they're hostages in society and are entitled to rectification of that injustice.

That means they're entitled to heritage, narrative, story, custom, culture, and tradition which inspire them to apply themselves, and they're entitled to objective morals to ensure they're treated with respect when applying themselves.

They are not entitled to shit - they should be thankful for the air they breath.

People are entitled to respect because of who's on the inside that counts. We are innocent before proven guilty.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The late great country known as the United States of America. RIP.

 

[Daktoria]

Those are adults who grew up from being children.

How would you like it if you lived in a dysfunctional household growing up, yet despite applying yourself honestly, you never became successful because people who lived from functional households treated you like garbage?

Then, they tell you to appreciate what you got and that society owes you nothing. However, you go on welfare, but you're demoralized, and you're unfamiliar with how to otherwise entertain yourself in order to escape problems which you didn't create in the first place.

Sounds really fair, doesn't it?

You both exaggerate and over simplify the issue. I bet most of the time, your scenario doesn't apply.

Time for tough love and throwing more money at them just keeps the cycle going.

Even children from dysfunctional homes eventually do grow up. You can only blame being born poor for so long. Many who are born poor succeed and live a normal, productive life. Of course, the ones that pull themselves up aren't exactly appreciated by the left. Instead of bashing people like Herman Cain, maybe the left should hold him up as an example to follow.

Instead, he's called a traitor, puppet, Uncle Tom or worse. I think that sort of language gives young people the impression that Cain did something wrong and they'll do the opposite of what he and others did. Why work to elevate yourself if it will make you a target for ridicule?

The only people the left holds up as heroes are those who are willing to steal from the tax payers and give to their supporters. That is wrong. Why is it that liberals teach people to hate those who succeed and worship those who merely take from one group and give to another? No wonder this country is so fucked up.

I'm not saying welfare is good.

I'm saying as long as it exists, there shouldn't be a problem with people spending it to escape problems they didn't create.

Yes, it's possible for people to become successful despite dysfunctional upbringings.

However, possibilities don't imply necessities.

 

[Rocko]

Sorry. I didn't see what you wrote before.

I think any form of entertainment can exacerbate the issue from people being spoiled into addiction.

What makes drugs so special?

No problem.

Well if you think drug use is benign then maybe you better do some research on the subject. I don't mean that in a condescending way.

To be clear, I don't think drug use is the only activity which isn't benign.

I'm just saying drug use shouldn't be treated differently from other activities.

People can get fat from eating too much.

People can fry their brains from playing video games or watching TV.

People can get hurt if they try extreme sports without safety equipment because they love the thrill of danger.

There are lots of self-destructive activities out there.

Right, well one sure fire self destructive activity is drug use. People start getting high because it's fun, then they get high to forget about their problems and at last they feel they need to get high to function. We should be using our resources to help these people, not make their situation worse.

 

[Daktoria]

I agree that we should be using resources to help these people.

The problem is welfare doesn't help people, but welfare is what society is willing to do.

I also agree that it's possible for people to become addicted to entertainment which includes self-destructive activities.

That's all the more motivation for society to actually get on the ball in solving these problems. It doesn't want to have to compensate these people for hurting themselves to escape problems they didn't create.

However, as long as these problems exist, those who suffer from them should have the freedom to choose how to escape them. They don't deserve insult added to injury by being regulated after being neglected or abused.

That would be like telling a business that gets stolen from that it's entitled to government compensation after a criminal doesn't return the property it stole, but that the government is entitled to tell the business how to spend what the government compensates it with.

 

[Rocko]

I agree that we should be using resources to help these people.

The problem is welfare doesn't help people, but welfare is what society is willing to do.

I also agree that it's possible for people to become addicted to entertainment which includes self-destructive activities.

That's all the more motivation for society to actually get on the ball in solving these problems. It doesn't want to have to compensate these people for hurting themselves to escape problems they didn't create.

However, as long as these problems exist, those who suffer from them should have the freedom to choose how to escape them. They don't deserve insult added to injury by being regulated after being neglected or abused.

That would be like telling a business that gets stolen from that it's entitled to government compensation after a criminal doesn't return the property it stole, but that the government is entitled to tell the business how to spend what the government compensates it with.

Well, as far my feelings are concerned I don't believe anyone, welfare recipient or not, should have the "freedom" to use drugs. I've personally witnessed the effects and it's not pretty.

 

[Clementine]

No problem.

Well if you think drug use is benign then maybe you better do some research on the subject. I don't mean that in a condescending way.

To be clear, I don't think drug use is the only activity which isn't benign.

I'm just saying drug use shouldn't be treated differently from other activities.

People can get fat from eating too much.

People can fry their brains from playing video games or watching TV.

People can get hurt if they try extreme sports without safety equipment because they love the thrill of danger.

There are lots of self-destructive activities out there.

Right, well one sure fire self destructive activity is drug use. People start getting high because it's fun, then they get high to forget about their problems and at last they feel they need to get high to function. We should be using our resources to help these people, not make their situation worse.

The current system is likely to hasten their self-destruction, especially in states that allow pot smoking for leisure.

If there's an alcoholic or drug addict in your family, they recommend tough love. I think a version of that should be used for people who are having their bad choices subsidized by tax payers. I'm not saying we should tell them to go away and starve or live on the street, but we should have laws that force them to undergo therapy as they receive aid. No addict should ever be trusted to take care of children and since the Dems agree that children are the main priority, then we need to address the parents who are fucking up big time when it comes to caring for children and keeping them safe. Otherwise we are just enabling them and nothing will ever change. Aren't children raised in homes with addicts more apt to make bad choices and end up in the same boat? That is what the other poster was saying when he claimed these dysfunctional kids are doomed from the start.

Of course, the only way to help welfare people with addictions would mean random drug testing and the liberals don't want that. They would rather keep throwing money at them and ignoring the problem rather than face it and actually help them.

As much money as we've thrown at the education system, it's only gotten worse. Maybe if the unions would spend some money on the students instead of just shoring up ever increasing pensions and benefits, things would improve. Teachers can be bad at their job and still be safe, thanks to unions and collective bargaining. Of course, parents don't always fulfill their role since they might be too busy getting high or doing other stupid shit.

That leaves society to handle the problems and any time someone comes up with a hard solution, it gets shot down by the liberals. Their ideas haven't helped and only made it worse. Now it's time to get serious. There is nothing wrong with putting conditions on taking people's money. Being subsidized is not a right. It's a privilege and should be okay to have strings attached.

When we bailed out those "too big to fail" companies, there were plenty of conditions and restrictions. There was hell to pay if they used the money for anything other than the intended purpose. Many even got criticized for spending their own money on anything extravagant. Yet, when we bail people out, there are few rules and no one does anything about it.

 

[Zander]

Those are adults who grew up from being children.

How would you like it if you lived in a dysfunctional household growing up, yet despite applying yourself honestly, you never became successful because people who lived from functional households treated you like garbage?

Then, they tell you to appreciate what you got and that society owes you nothing. However, you go on welfare, but you're demoralized, and you're unfamiliar with how to otherwise entertain yourself in order to escape problems which you didn't create in the first place.

Sounds really fair, doesn't it?

Fuck "fair". Life is not Fair.
Get over it and make a life. Or don't. Be a victim and a dependent.
just remember that "Society" doesn't owe you a thing.

 

[Daktoria]

I agree that we should be using resources to help these people.

The problem is welfare doesn't help people, but welfare is what society is willing to do.

I also agree that it's possible for people to become addicted to entertainment which includes self-destructive activities.

That's all the more motivation for society to actually get on the ball in solving these problems. It doesn't want to have to compensate these people for hurting themselves to escape problems they didn't create.

However, as long as these problems exist, those who suffer from them should have the freedom to choose how to escape them. They don't deserve insult added to injury by being regulated after being neglected or abused.

That would be like telling a business that gets stolen from that it's entitled to government compensation after a criminal doesn't return the property it stole, but that the government is entitled to tell the business how to spend what the government compensates it with.

Well, as far my feelings are concerned I don't believe anyone, welfare recipient or not, should have the "freedom" to use drugs. I've personally witnessed the effects and it's not pretty.

Hmmm... give me a sec. I have to think about that.

 

[Daktoria]

Those are adults who grew up from being children.

How would you like it if you lived in a dysfunctional household growing up, yet despite applying yourself honestly, you never became successful because people who lived from functional households treated you like garbage?

Then, they tell you to appreciate what you got and that society owes you nothing. However, you go on welfare, but you're demoralized, and you're unfamiliar with how to otherwise entertain yourself in order to escape problems which you didn't create in the first place.

Sounds really fair, doesn't it?

Fuck "fair". Life is not Fair.
Get over it and make a life. Or don't. Be a victim and a dependent.
just remember that "Society" doesn't owe you a thing.

No, life's not fair.

No, we don't just live. We live in society. We aren't animals in a state of nature. We're people in civilization.

By default, people are hostages. They are forced into society without consent.

Therefore, they're entitled to be inspired by heritage in order to apply themselves, and they're entitled to objective morals to make sure they're treated with respect when applying themselves.

When these things don't exist, they incapacitate people from alleviating the natural demands of exposure, exhaustion, starvation, and frustration, so society is obligated to compensate people for that incapacitation.

 

[Daktoria]

I agree that we should be using resources to help these people.

The problem is welfare doesn't help people, but welfare is what society is willing to do.

I also agree that it's possible for people to become addicted to entertainment which includes self-destructive activities.

That's all the more motivation for society to actually get on the ball in solving these problems. It doesn't want to have to compensate these people for hurting themselves to escape problems they didn't create.

However, as long as these problems exist, those who suffer from them should have the freedom to choose how to escape them. They don't deserve insult added to injury by being regulated after being neglected or abused.

That would be like telling a business that gets stolen from that it's entitled to government compensation after a criminal doesn't return the property it stole, but that the government is entitled to tell the business how to spend what the government compensates it with.

Well, as far my feelings are concerned I don't believe anyone, welfare recipient or not, should have the "freedom" to use drugs. I've personally witnessed the effects and it's not pretty.

There are many ways I could respond to that.

I could ask about what your feelings have to do with anything.

I could ask about what your belief would be if you didn't personally witness it.

I could ask about what being "pretty" has to do with anything, or who do you think you are for defining what qualifies as "pretty" since what's "pretty" is an opinion.

I could ask about what should be said to someone who hasn't witnessed those effects, or what should be said to those who have witnessed those effects not happening since people can remain entertained without becoming addicted...

...but then I saw what you were really getting at, and to be honest, that was an accident on my part. When I made the business analogy, I wasn't trying to make a statement on income inequality as if it matters whether someone's on welfare or not. I mean I wasn't going to say that drug usage should be exclusively legal for those on welfare as a social problem treatment. lol

The idea is that while it might be responsible for government to do what it takes to prevent people from harming themselves, it would be arrogant for government to prevent harm after the fact that harm wasn't prevented in the first place.

If government wanted to prevent harm, then it would have prevented the circumstances which lead to welfare usage.

If it restricts welfare users from using drugs, government would basically be saying, "We're first going to expose you to problems, but then we're going to frustrate you from escaping those problems."