SF voters pass measure to drug test welfare recipients

[Del Tachi]

I can understand the frustration but most problems of illicit drugs are the direct result of drugs being illegal. This will accomplish nothing.

No.  Legal heroin will not put more users into good homes/jobs.  Addiction saps the life force out of its victims.  It becomes impossible to take care of yourself if you're hooked on serious drugs.

If you work in a big enough office I'd be surprised if there isn't at least once person you work with who uses heroin and you don't know it.

Yes, and if they continue to use their lives will become increasingly unmanageable until their dependency is such that it interferes with their relationships, finances, mental health, ability to take care of themselves, etc.  I only pray that they preempt this cycle and get sober before another life is ruined by the spiritual disease of addiction.  

[snip]

Your statistics make a very uncompelling case.  By your own back-of-the-napkin estimates, heroin users participate in the labor force (i.e., employed or unemployed seeking employment) at half the rate as everyone else.  And that's includes all people who used at least once in the past 12 months?  The rate for those who are regular users/addicts would be even lower.

Walk down the streets of any major U.S. city and see the homeless, the vagrants, the street workers and you will be face to face with heroin users.  I have friends–young, successful and bright men in their 20s–who have died from overdoses, and many more who are now spiritually dead in their addictions.  Statistics are silent where anecdotes speak to what has happened in the lives of real people.  They belong in this discussion.

The "live-at-let-live" attitude of mass drug destigmitization and legalization places all the responsibility for the poor outcomes associated with drug use on an oppressive "system" that is only too overzealous to punish people who are only down on their luck, trying to have a little bit of fun, etc., etc.  But it isn't true.  Addiction harms and kills people who never have any interaction with the criminal justice system.  Putting more powerful substances into the hands of more people is only going to make things worse.  

Indeed, all you have are anecdotes and paternalistic feelings. How many of the people who died, died from fentanyl laced heroin which would not happen if all drugs were legal and regulated.

The problem with policy based on feelings and emotion is that it tends to result in the worst outcomes, the road to Hell being paved with good intentions and all that.

I recall you were one of the "live and let live" Covidiots who didn't want to be told what to do, but seem to think you have the authoritarian right to tell other people the choices they must make, even though the Covidiots were the equivalent of fentanyl laced drugs out on the streets quietly infecting and killing other people. You might want to reflect on your self serving hypocrisy as well.

Fentanyl is legal and regulated.  Is your suggestion that anybody be allowed to buy oxy off-the-shelf at CVS?  LOL

We see how the drug legalization regime went in Oregon.  After only 3 years, the state is clawing it back.  Turns out legal dope doesn't benefit anybody.  Of course, this is only news for braindead liberals.  

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

I can understand the frustration but most problems of illicit drugs are the direct result of drugs being illegal. This will accomplish nothing.

No.  Legal heroin will not put more users into good homes/jobs.  Addiction saps the life force out of its victims.  It becomes impossible to take care of yourself if you're hooked on serious drugs.

If you work in a big enough office I'd be surprised if there isn't at least once person you work with who uses heroin and you don't know it.

Yes, and if they continue to use their lives will become increasingly unmanageable until their dependency is such that it interferes with their relationships, finances, mental health, ability to take care of themselves, etc.  I only pray that they preempt this cycle and get sober before another life is ruined by the spiritual disease of addiction.  

[snip]

Your statistics make a very uncompelling case.  By your own back-of-the-napkin estimates, heroin users participate in the labor force (i.e., employed or unemployed seeking employment) at half the rate as everyone else.  And that's includes all people who used at least once in the past 12 months?  The rate for those who are regular users/addicts would be even lower.

Walk down the streets of any major U.S. city and see the homeless, the vagrants, the street workers and you will be face to face with heroin users.  I have friends–young, successful and bright men in their 20s–who have died from overdoses, and many more who are now spiritually dead in their addictions.  Statistics are silent where anecdotes speak to what has happened in the lives of real people.  They belong in this discussion.

The "live-at-let-live" attitude of mass drug destigmitization and legalization places all the responsibility for the poor outcomes associated with drug use on an oppressive "system" that is only too overzealous to punish people who are only down on their luck, trying to have a little bit of fun, etc., etc.  But it isn't true.  Addiction harms and kills people who never have any interaction with the criminal justice system.  Putting more powerful substances into the hands of more people is only going to make things worse.  

Indeed, all you have are anecdotes and paternalistic feelings. How many of the people who died, died from fentanyl laced heroin which would not happen if all drugs were legal and regulated.

The problem with policy based on feelings and emotion is that it tends to result in the worst outcomes, the road to Hell being paved with good intentions and all that.

I recall you were one of the "live and let live" Covidiots who didn't want to be told what to do, but seem to think you have the authoritarian right to tell other people the choices they must make, even though the Covidiots were the equivalent of fentanyl laced drugs out on the streets quietly infecting and killing other people. You might want to reflect on your self serving hypocrisy as well.

Fentanyl is legal and regulated, you idiot.  Is your suggestion that anybody be allowed to buy oxy off-the-shelf at CVS?  LOL

It's likely that very few people would consume fentanyl intentionally if other choices were also legally available.

Also, I'm not surprised since you were a Covidiot that you're not intelligent enough to see the obvious differences between 'decriminalization' and 'legalization.'

Interesting how sensitive you got when suddenly it was your choices that were being questioned and pointed out as harmful to other people. Sorry your poor little feelings were hurt.

[Del Tachi]

I can understand the frustration but most problems of illicit drugs are the direct result of drugs being illegal. This will accomplish nothing.

No.  Legal heroin will not put more users into good homes/jobs.  Addiction saps the life force out of its victims.  It becomes impossible to take care of yourself if you're hooked on serious drugs.

If you work in a big enough office I'd be surprised if there isn't at least once person you work with who uses heroin and you don't know it.

Yes, and if they continue to use their lives will become increasingly unmanageable until their dependency is such that it interferes with their relationships, finances, mental health, ability to take care of themselves, etc.  I only pray that they preempt this cycle and get sober before another life is ruined by the spiritual disease of addiction. 

[snip]

Your statistics make a very uncompelling case.  By your own back-of-the-napkin estimates, heroin users participate in the labor force (i.e., employed or unemployed seeking employment) at half the rate as everyone else.  And that's includes all people who used at least once in the past 12 months?  The rate for those who are regular users/addicts would be even lower.

Walk down the streets of any major U.S. city and see the homeless, the vagrants, the street workers and you will be face to face with heroin users.  I have friends–young, successful and bright men in their 20s–who have died from overdoses, and many more who are now spiritually dead in their addictions.  Statistics are silent where anecdotes speak to what has happened in the lives of real people.  They belong in this discussion.

The "live-at-let-live" attitude of mass drug destigmitization and legalization places all the responsibility for the poor outcomes associated with drug use on an oppressive "system" that is only too overzealous to punish people who are only down on their luck, trying to have a little bit of fun, etc., etc.  But it isn't true.  Addiction harms and kills people who never have any interaction with the criminal justice system.  Putting more powerful substances into the hands of more people is only going to make things worse. 

Indeed, all you have are anecdotes and paternalistic feelings. How many of the people who died, died from fentanyl laced heroin which would not happen if all drugs were legal and regulated.

The problem with policy based on feelings and emotion is that it tends to result in the worst outcomes, the road to Hell being paved with good intentions and all that.

I recall you were one of the "live and let live" Covidiots who didn't want to be told what to do, but seem to think you have the authoritarian right to tell other people the choices they must make, even though the Covidiots were the equivalent of fentanyl laced drugs out on the streets quietly infecting and killing other people. You might want to reflect on your self serving hypocrisy as well.

Fentanyl is legal and regulated, you idiot.  Is your suggestion that anybody be allowed to buy oxy off-the-shelf at CVS?  LOL

It's likely that very few people would consume fentanyl intentionally if other choices were also legally available.

...if we did what?  Gave every American access to legal heroin?  All that does is create new addicts and ruin the lives of more people.  How compassionate of you!

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

I can understand the frustration but most problems of illicit drugs are the direct result of drugs being illegal. This will accomplish nothing.

No.  Legal heroin will not put more users into good homes/jobs.  Addiction saps the life force out of its victims.  It becomes impossible to take care of yourself if you're hooked on serious drugs.

If you work in a big enough office I'd be surprised if there isn't at least once person you work with who uses heroin and you don't know it.

Yes, and if they continue to use their lives will become increasingly unmanageable until their dependency is such that it interferes with their relationships, finances, mental health, ability to take care of themselves, etc.  I only pray that they preempt this cycle and get sober before another life is ruined by the spiritual disease of addiction.  

[snip]

Your statistics make a very uncompelling case.  By your own back-of-the-napkin estimates, heroin users participate in the labor force (i.e., employed or unemployed seeking employment) at half the rate as everyone else.  And that's includes all people who used at least once in the past 12 months?  The rate for those who are regular users/addicts would be even lower.

Walk down the streets of any major U.S. city and see the homeless, the vagrants, the street workers and you will be face to face with heroin users.  I have friends–young, successful and bright men in their 20s–who have died from overdoses, and many more who are now spiritually dead in their addictions.  Statistics are silent where anecdotes speak to what has happened in the lives of real people.  They belong in this discussion.

The "live-at-let-live" attitude of mass drug destigmitization and legalization places all the responsibility for the poor outcomes associated with drug use on an oppressive "system" that is only too overzealous to punish people who are only down on their luck, trying to have a little bit of fun, etc., etc.  But it isn't true.  Addiction harms and kills people who never have any interaction with the criminal justice system.  Putting more powerful substances into the hands of more people is only going to make things worse.  

Indeed, all you have are anecdotes and paternalistic feelings. How many of the people who died, died from fentanyl laced heroin which would not happen if all drugs were legal and regulated.

The problem with policy based on feelings and emotion is that it tends to result in the worst outcomes, the road to Hell being paved with good intentions and all that.

I recall you were one of the "live and let live" Covidiots who didn't want to be told what to do, but seem to think you have the authoritarian right to tell other people the choices they must make, even though the Covidiots were the equivalent of fentanyl laced drugs out on the streets quietly infecting and killing other people. You might want to reflect on your self serving hypocrisy as well.

Fentanyl is legal and regulated, you idiot.  Is your suggestion that anybody be allowed to buy oxy off-the-shelf at CVS?  LOL

It's likely that very few people would consume fentanyl intentionally if other choices were also legally available.

...if we did what?  Gave every American access to legal heroin?  All that does is create new addicts and ruin the lives of more people.  How compassionate of you!

And your paternalistic pseudo compassion results in the deaths of over 100,000 Americans from unregulated illicit drugs per year.

Of course, Covidiocy resulted in the unnecessary deaths of probably close to 1 million Americans. But, because that involved having to be told what to do by people who understand the science rather than the Covidiots who 'did their own research' Covidiots had zero compassion or concern for their fellow Americans then, but insisted on 'live and let live/die.'

Everybody interested already has access to illicit heroin, the only thing your paternalistic authoritarian harmful pseudo compassion results in is an unsafe/deadly supply.

Spare me your paternalistic authoritarian harmful pseudo compassion and spare me your hypocrisy.

[Del Tachi]

snip

Blah blah blah.  No one except you gets their rocks off comparing covid to f[inks]ing opioids.  You really are one of the worst posters on this site, aren't you?

The idea that "everyone interested already has access to illicit heroin" is false, or at least not well-supported.  Alcohol and tobacco are abused more than 10-times-over compared to heroin exactly because they're legal and readily available.  Legalizing marijuana has extended its use.  It really takes some motivated mental gymnastics to believe making something more available would result is fewer people using it.     

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

snip

Blah blah blah.  No one except you gets their rocks off comparing covid to f[inks]ing opioids.  You really are one of the worst posters on this site, aren't you?

The idea that "everyone interested already has access to illicit heroin" is false, or at least not well-supported.  Alcohol and tobacco are abused more than 10-times-over compared to heroin exactly because they're legal and readily available.  Legalizing marijuana has extended its use.  It really takes some motivated mental gymnastics to believe making something more available would result is fewer people using it.    

The hypocrisy of many Covidiots is obvious (authoritarian for thee but not for me) and the similarities and contradictions in illicit drugs and the policy choices on Covid is also obvious and has been noted by many people regarded as intelligent.

For instance, if 'forced medication' is unconstitutional as the Covidiots asserted, then how can illicit drug users be forced to take alternative drugs in order to get off of drugs?

I never expected Americans to show themselves to be so selfish during Covid which also makes me wonder the degree to which illicit substance users resent being told what to do and maybe even remain on the drugs out of spite. I suspect that number is low due to the power of the addiction, but it is I think an interesting possibility.

If you don't like it being pointed out or are uncomfortable with the possibility that your selfish choices may have resulted in your fellow citizens dying, that's your problem not mine.

I don't think any illicit drug or marijuana where it has not been legalized should be legal for those under 18 and I'd be interested if you could show me where I said that 'making something more available would result in fewer people using it.'

I also support an extensive legal regime to go along with legalized drugs with the same principle that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' To me, that includes possible forced medication for those who commit crimes as a result of consuming drugs.

As to the rest, I have to assume you didn't read what you linked to me. From the link:

Analysis of the recent U.S. state legalizations is more limited, but broader research suggests little to no effect of decriminalization on drug use.

Of the six states with post‐legalization data, in four—Maine, Massachusetts, Alaska, and Colorado—adolescent use reportedly decreases in the years immediately prior to legalization and then returns roughly to prior use rates. The available data show no obvious effect of legalization on youth marijuana use.

I would have actually expected a slight increase in drug use, rather than the finding that marijuana legalization had 'little to no effect.' Like any other policy, tradeoffs are required. I think that the tradeoff of hypothetically slightly more people using currently illicit drugs, but getting to use them in a way that minimizes harm to themselves and to the community is the obvious optimum choice but obviously stigma, pseudo compassion, fear of moving away from the status quo and the desire by some to act authoritarian over people they regard as inferior blocks rational policy choices.

[Electric Circus]

I sometimes get annoyed here that I put in some actual effort matching up different data, and I get responses based on anecdotes or 'feelings.'

Do you have any actual evidence that heroin users' lives spiral down due to the heroin use itself or is this just stereotyping based on stigma and to the degree that it is actually the case that heroin users' lives spiral that it isn't caused by getting arrested resulting in the loss of job/loss of housing.

This is about as delusional as hopping off of a plane without a parachute because you haven't seen a rigorous randomized control trial that measures whether outcomes are significantly better for jumpers who use one.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

I sometimes get annoyed here that I put in some actual effort matching up different data, and I get responses based on anecdotes or 'feelings.'

Do you have any actual evidence that heroin users' lives spiral down due to the heroin use itself or is this just stereotyping based on stigma and to the degree that it is actually the case that heroin users' lives spiral that it isn't caused by getting arrested resulting in the loss of job/loss of housing.

This is about as delusional as hopping off of a plane without a parachute because you haven't seen a rigorous randomized control trial that measures whether outcomes are significantly better for jumpers who use one.

This is an unintelligent analogy. When there are multiple possible causes for something, it's best not to jump to a conclusion. In your lame analogy the physics is also well understand whereas human behavior and group dynamics are much more complex.


This is especially the case when the anecdotes and the analysis of the anecdotes come from either paternalistic right wing pseudo moral authoritarians or from left wing nanny state pseudo moral authoritarians.

[Electric Circus]

It is said that a visitor once came to the home of Nobel Prize–winning physicist Niels Bohr and, having noticed a horseshoe hung above the entrance, asked incredulously if the professor believed horseshoes brought good luck. “No,” Bohr replied, “but I am told that they bring luck even to those who do not believe in them.”

Call me whatever you want. It can't be worse than being the guy trying to argue that there's an unclear chain of cause and effect between heroin use and harm on a forum full of teenagers and young adults.

[Farmlands]

It is said that a visitor once came to the home of Nobel Prize–winning physicist Niels Bohr and, having noticed a horseshoe hung above the entrance, asked incredulously if the professor believed horseshoes brought good luck. “No,” Bohr replied, “but I am told that they bring luck even to those who do not believe in them.”

Call me whatever you want. It can't be worse than being the guy trying to argue that there's an unclear chain of cause and effect between heroin use and harm on a forum full of teenagers and young adults.

Well, Frank has said that the state of addiction, even to an entirely artificial chemical manufactured to be addictive such as fentanyl, is completely natural and shouldn't be looked down upon, so it's a consistent worldview at least.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

It is said that a visitor once came to the home of Nobel Prize–winning physicist Niels Bohr and, having noticed a horseshoe hung above the entrance, asked incredulously if the professor believed horseshoes brought good luck. “No,” Bohr replied, “but I am told that they bring luck even to those who do not believe in them.”

Call me whatever you want. It can't be worse than being the guy trying to argue that there's an unclear chain of cause and effect between heroin use and harm on a forum full of teenagers and young adults.

Well, Frank has said that the state of addiction, even to an entirely artificial chemical manufactured to be addictive such as fentanyl, is completely natural and shouldn't be looked down upon, so it's a consistent worldview at least.

1.I never said that about fentanyl

For those who actually want to use fentanyl rather than having it laced into the drugs they actually do want to use, I agree that it is so dangerous that anybody who voluntary wants to use it they should be regarded as a danger to themselves and involuntary committed.

2.What I said is that the users of fentanyl shouldn't be looked down on, not that the drug shouldn't be looked down on. Those are completely different things, but if you have a need to claim you are morally superior to other people, I can see you wouldn't understand that.

I certainly have no problem with being criticized, but like most people, I appreciate when the criticism is actually on point. I'm certainly aware that many moral grandstanders are just looking to score cheap points so actually have a disincentive to understand the argument being made.

I agree that it would be best if nobody consumed any drugs including alcohol and cigarettes, but we live in a world of imperfect humans and its simplistic to think that the solution to every problem is to 'ban it and it will go away.'

[Goldwater]

This is just a waste of time and money.

[Del Tachi]

snip

Once again, there is no comparison between forced school closures and vaccine mandates and firggin' legal heroin dude.  If you want to start a talk about "covidiots" three years too late, start a new thread. 

Also, you read the wrong section of the report. States that legalize marijuana had increasing rates of marijuana use:

In many states, use increased modestly in the years leading up to legalization. For example, Maine’s participation rate hovered around 12–13 percent between 2003 and 2009; it then increased to 14 percent in 2011, 16 percent in 2013, and 19 percent from 2014 through 2016. After legalization in 2016, the increase continued to 22 percent in 2017 and almost 24 percent in 2018. Similarly, marijuana use in Massachusetts began increasing in 2012, several years prior to its legalization in 2016. Maine and Massachusetts track the pattern previously seen with early legalizers (Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon)

This isn't surprising.  Legalize a formerly illicit substance and more people will use it.  The suggestion to do the same with something as dangerous and addictive as heroin is farcical, and cannot be justified under a "harm reduction" principle.  The individual and social harm of more people using heroin completely outweighs any potential decrease in the number of fentanyl overdoses.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is hardly the only time it's happened, but it's pretty telling that Frank is making me agree with his position less after this thread after arguing with Del Tachi who I almost never agree with.

I do oppose the measure in the OP, because every time this has been tried it costs more money than it saves.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

snip

Once again, there is no comparison between forced school closures and vaccine mandates and firggin' legal heroin dude.  If you want to start a talk about "covidiots" three years too late, start a new thread.  

Also, you read the wrong section of the report. States that legalize marijuana had increasing rates of marijuana use:

In many states, use increased modestly in the years leading up to legalization. For example, Maine’s participation rate hovered around 12–13 percent between 2003 and 2009; it then increased to 14 percent in 2011, 16 percent in 2013, and 19 percent from 2014 through 2016. After legalization in 2016, the increase continued to 22 percent in 2017 and almost 24 percent in 2018. Similarly, marijuana use in Massachusetts began increasing in 2012, several years prior to its legalization in 2016. Maine and Massachusetts track the pattern previously seen with early legalizers (Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon)

This isn't surprising.  Legalize a formerly illicit substance and more people will use it.  The suggestion to do the same with something as dangerous and addictive as heroin is farcical, and cannot be justified under a "harm reduction" principle.  The individual and social harm of more people using heroin completely outweighs any potential decrease in the number of fentanyl overdoses.

1.In comparison I was solely referring to mask mandates and vaccines and not decisions that in hindsight were perhaps a mistake like school closures.

As to there being no similarity, I've already given an example of a similarity. Covidiots during Covid "forced medications are unconstitutional.'

Well, if that's the case, then it is also unconstitutional to mandate forced medication substitutions to try to force drug addicts off of drugs.

We can go further with that as well, since I recognize the courts often theoretically make it a choice for the user, that of whether to accept the forced medication alternative or to go to jail, but as the Covidiots said about either getting vaccinated or losing their job, that really isn't a choice.

Just to make it clear, I'm totally consistent here. I don't believe there is anything in the U.S Constitution about 'forced medications' and as I supported vaccine mandates, as part of the regulatory model for legal drugs, I absolutely support forced treatment including forced medication for drug addicts who show themselves to be a danger to themselves or others.
Legalized and regulated drugs is not some libertine thing, it's a policy that is consistent with all the other criminal models in the United States, including, for instance, with guns.

2.As you yourself may have said, or maybe you think all drugs are bad, there is no real connection between hard drugs and marijuana. So, that marijuana use increased after it was legalized is not evidence for what would happen with hard drugs. I never said, as you falsely claimed earlier, that I thought hard drug usage, like heroin, would decline, if it was legalized.

As I have perhaps not made it clear enough, I don't like any drug, I wish they didn't exist and I think nobody should use them. But that's not this reality. This reality involves minimizing harm given the reality of the existence of these drugs, and the authoritarian police model has failed so badly, as could only have been the case, that the legalization and regulation model is obviously superior though not a silver bullet, which does not exist.

Similarly during Covid, wearing masks and getting vaccinated were so obviously the way to minimize harm that they shouldn't even have been controversial, but I know there were unfortunately many selfish and incredibly entitled idiots for whom it was too much to even wear a mask or get vaccinated, but many of whom now with drugs lie that they are "compassionate", but really just want to dictate and rule over other people. "Authoritarian for thee but not for me."

It is difficult to know accurate counts of usage of marijuana prior to it being legalized because, since these numbers are based on self reporting, it's reasonable to conclude that at least some marijuana users prior to its legalization lied that they didn't use it.

Also, as wasn't mentioned, this isn't an area of expertise of mine, but with the legalization of marijuana and increase in its usage, there seems to be a concurrent decline in usage of alcohol. I have no idea, of course, if this is merely a correlation or a causation, but if it is a causation, I think it's hard to argue that marijuana isn't less harmful than alcohol, though obviously both are bad before the age of 25 or so.

It certainly does seem to be the case that marijuana use has increased, but for the reasons I just spelled out, great care needs to be taken in trying to use those numbers to predict what would happen with the legalization of hard drugs.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

This is hardly the only time it's happened, but it's pretty telling that Frank is making me agree with his position less after this thread after arguing with Del Tachi who I almost never agree with.

I do oppose the measure in the OP, because every time this has been tried it costs more money than it saves.

Yes, I've been told by a few people that the way I argue is counterproductive, but I've also been told that I make 'very good and compelling arguments' by other people both here, on other forums, and in real life.

I have no way of knowing how my arguments will be received and I certainly expect that every individual will receive them differently.

I acknowledge what seems to work best is for me to make an argument that has been overlooked by others since I seem to look at the world a bit differently than most other people, and then have others refine the argument for me. But, I'm on my own here.

Similarly I know there were times I read arguments you made and decided on the basis of your arguments to take an opposite position.

I used to have no real position on 'Emo Music' other than I thought it was better than 'angst rock' but, thanks to you, I now hate it.

[GP270watch]

 Drug testing welfare recipients has proven to cost more than it collects in clawed back benefits. This has been tried elsewhere this has failed wherever it's been introduced.

States waste hundreds of thousands on drug testing for welfare, but have little to show for it

[Electric Circus]

Drug testing welfare recipients has proven to cost more than it collects in clawed back benefits. This has been tried elsewhere this has failed wherever it's been introduced.

States waste hundreds of thousands on drug testing for welfare, but have little to show for it

This is arguably a sign that the policy worked. One intent of testing is to deter people from using drugs in the first place.

The studies and numbers that get invoked in these conversations usually come with the assumption that drug testing is only successful if loads of people are testing positive and getting thrown off of the rolls.

Obviously, this is speculative unless you have some sense of what the base rate of drug use is in this population. With that said, 2% is very low. You would struggle to find a population with so little drug use if you picked Americans for testing at random.

Never mind that this study is with regard to people eligible for a completely different benefit than the one that San Francisco is looking at. (edit: To elaborate, Pollack is talking about TANF, a benefit for families with children, while the San Francisco initiative is concerned not only with different benefits, but specifically limits its application to beneficiaries without dependents.)

[Bandit3 the Worker]

San Francisco in 2024 is more right-wing than Cincinnati in 1993.

[Del Tachi]

snip

1.  No.  You brought up "covidiots" to suggest there's something hypocritical about right-wingers wanting "muh freedoms" during the pandemic but not being ok with legalizing hard drugs.  But there is no comparison because opioids are much more dangerous than coronavirus ever was.

2.  You cannot justify legalizing hard drugs like heroin under a harm reduction principle.  Any reduction in fentanyl overdoses would be counteracted by a surge in the number of people initiating or escalating their opioid use after those drugs are legalized, thus increasing overall addiction rates and their associated harms. 

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

snip

1.  No.  You brought up "covidiots" to suggest there's something hypocritical about right-wingers wanting "muh freedoms" during the pandemic but not being ok with legalizing hard drugs.  But there is no comparison because opioids are much more dangerous than coronavirus ever was.

2.  You cannot justify legalizing hard drugs like heroin under a harm reduction principle.  Any reduction in fentanyl overdoses would be counteracted by a surge in the number of people initiating or escalating their opioid use after those drugs are legalized, thus increasing overall addiction rates and their associated harms.  

1.'Hard drugs' were illegal long before fentanyl, so this is not about fentanyl. Anybody who uses fentanyl should be committed. Otherwise, yes there are enormous similarities, not least of which that heroin and cocaine are less dangerous than Covid unless laced with fentanyl.

For instance:
If a person chooses to not get vaccinated and dies as a result, that should be their choice.

If a person chooses to use cocaine/heroin as a result, that should be their choice.

Both are what are referred to as 'body autonomy.'

The difference is that Covitidiots killed other people by spreading a deadly virus while hard drug users are mostly a harm to themselves alone and would be even less of a burden if drugs were legalized and regulated. I.E, hard drugs aren't contagious.

How deadly would the Coronovirus have had to have been before you recognized that it wasn't an issue of personal body autonomy? Over 1 million of your fellow Americans wasn't enough?

2.You're the one making this assertion. Do you have any evidence for it? Most experts in this area say hard drug use would not increase or would barely increase.

You and others with your mindset are causing over 100,000 people to die a year with fentanyl laced hard drugs and putting them through all the other miseries out of mindless fear.

That right wingers like you trust people with guns but not to make (mostly) wise decisions for themselves with drugs is ridiculous.

What you advocate is personal choice for a deadly disease and for weapons whose only purpose is to kill, but dictating to other people what they can and can't do with their own body. This is what I refer to as pseudo morality.

I also favor legal and regulated guns, though, so again, I'm consistent.