Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 665
- 140
- Banned
- #1,061
You don't realize it, but you're beginning to agree with what I'm saying. If we stop the flow of drugs by forcing the government to get out of the drug business and IF we prescribed drugs as the LAST option, not the first, we'd be making progress.
Then we have to repeal National ID, E-Verify, and background checks while helping people get rehabilitated so they get a second chance.
When they are in the workforce, there is less demand for foreign labor and no need for drug cartels to exist.
I don't know what one as to do with the other. What does other preventative measures to stop illegal immigration have to do with Americans using opioids?
The government is not in the drug business. The government regulates most narcotics to be prescribed and purchased legally. As for people becoming addicted, they are already taking measures for that. Millions of Americans now have to live in pain because Doctors are scared to death to use opioid products now. I know a few people personally that are suffering myself. Yet last year, we hit another record of opioid deaths at over 70,000 Americans.
The government IS in the drug business. Your failure to understand that does not make it any less true.
Once you get people off of drugs, rehabilitate them and restrict their records unless an employer can show cause for them being relevant to the job, they can go back to the workforce.
If a person is working instead of doing drugs, they will have a job and a foreigner will not. The more people working instead of doing drugs, the less need for cartels. This aint rocket science.
And obviously you know few if any addicts. If you did, you'd realize that rehabilitation doesn't work on most people for a prolonged period of time. The real solution is not to give them the ability to purchase illegal opioid products in the first place.
An employer does not have access to an applicants medical records. Unless you were talking about criminal records, but you didn't make that clear.
Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they lack experience. My experience IS working with addicts of all kinds. My experience is includes working with social agencies associated with the government. Now, it is working with a ministry that tries to help those who want to rise above it.
Rehabilitation must be part of the process and it never stops. You would realize that if you had carefully read all my posts on this thread. But, our main objective should be to get those off the drugs and productive so that they do not influence another generation. Drug abuse and alcoholism - as with most addictions are generational.
When people have a criminal record, as the overwhelming majority of addicts do, employers know by the charges that person was convicted of. A two year old pot conviction is irrelevant if a person wants to work for Mickey Ds, cut your grass or stock groceries on a shelf. It might be relevant if that person is entrusted with your children or operating a tractor trailer.
Your lack of experience is overt by your statement of treatment. Treatment doesn't work in most cases. Out of all the people I know (or acquainted with) I have yet to meet one who totally recovered from drug abuse. It may work for a short time: a month, a few months, perhaps a year or so, but it seldom works long term.
Furthermore it is not generational. My mother was an alcoholic. While I love my beer, it hardly stands in my way to be a productive member of society, hold down a job, or maintain my investments. I had a late Uncle who was a severe alcoholic and gambler. None of his three children touch alcohol and have no desire to gamble.
What gets some people on drugs is the availability. It often starts at a young age usually through peer pressure. That's what took place with tobacco products when I was younger. The kids who wanted acceptance from the cool kids took up smoking so as not to be left out. However tobacco products were readily available to virtually anybody. That would not have been the case if cigarettes were not legal in this country at the time.
Nobody goes to prison over pot, and very few are in prison for selling it. Those who are in prison are locked up for a related (more serious) crime. But when it comes to opioids which is much more addictive, an employer has the right to know who he or she is hiring due to the likelihood they may return to drug usage. My policy as a landlord is not to rent to felons; particularly those who used drugs in the past. Last time I rented to one of those people, they nearly burned down my house which cost over $85,000 to rebuild, and the insurance company canceled the policies on all my rental properties. I had to wait three years before any other insurance company would allow me to purchase a plan. Don't you think I have the right to know if another applicant in the future used hard narcotics?
You threw too much at me all at one time, so this is going to be a difficult response - one that only you will read.
First, you have already admitted that you think your problems are so bad you need something to deal with life. Legal or not, you use drugs and are an addict. Apparently YOU are the one with a lack of experience.
Again, once a person has been addicted to drugs the treatment is ongoing. You are creating a straw man argument, so I won't belabor that point. Your experience is using drugs; mine is the care and management of them after they get hooked.
True, MOST people start on things like beer, cigarettes and pot via peer pressure. MOST drug addicts begin at a very early age and it is increasingly because doctors and mental health workers prescribe drugs more often.
According to the CDC:
- About 1 out of 2 children with ADHD had a behavior or conduct problem.
If you address the bad conduct and behavioral issues BEFORE resorting to drugs, you find that, most of the time, it is not necessary to prescribe drugs.
Not only do you lack any experience in the treatment and care of those on drugs, but you do not understand the law either.
BEFORE 9 / 11 many Americans understood things like a presumption of innocence and the Right to Privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We're going far astray from the wall so if you want to pursue this further than my response, we should engage in another thread.
When it comes to the Right to Privacy, unless you have probable cause or a justifiable reason to search a person's background, no you should NOT have a right to go into a person's background with respect to issues that are not public record. BEFORE the Internet, we used paper applications and inquired of former employers and had the person being interviewed or checked out to provide personal references.
Protecting yourself as a homeowner means that you should not rely on the government to determine a person's character. If their employer says they've been on a job for a couple of years, the previous employer says that individual was on a job for a couple more. If their credit is good and they have a few personal references of upstanding citizens, You're probably good to go.
I caution you: Pissing away your Fourth Amendment Rights on some pretext of safety will have some SERIOUS long term ramifications.