Government Intervention

[Hilfiger1975]

This is exactly what the "seatbelt" issue is about. It's not about whether or not you should be wearing it, it's about whether or not the government should be allowed to MAKE you wear it. That's why it was compared to cigarettes. We all know that they are unhealthy but you do not see the government restricting access to them. Why on earth does the government care about your safety in one regard and not the other? It certainly doesn't sound like a "silly seatbelt argument" to me.

I don't think people should smoke cigarettes, its a disgusting habit and most who smoke always make excuses on why they need to. I'd like to think people have common sense to know smoking can kill you and not wearing a seatbell can kill you as well but lots of people don't have that common sense.

I know in the state of Michigan if you are over 16 you don't have to wear a seatbelt if you are in the backseat though.

This was your statement to Habs...which pretty says both things will kill you. Now can you answer the rest of the post?

[theonedru]

Walking your doggy across the street can kill you too...do you want the government to control that too? There is numerous things in this world that can kill you, but isn't that a right you have if it's not harming anyone to do what you like? Swallowing too much toothpaste can kill you too...so should the government control that too? I can think of about a million things in this world that can kill you, but why doesn't the government care about those?

Starving and being homeless in American can kill you too...but that's also common sense too, BTW...

Ok enough not wearing your seat belt can cause you to exit the vehicle at an accelerated speed during an accident and can make you a danger to others around possibly causing injuries or death, hence why your required to wear a seat belt as you stay within the vehicle. Now that you know 1 of many logical reasons to wear one we will not have to hear this argument again in a thread where it doesn't belong and we can stick to orig topic

[Hilfiger1975]

Ok enough not wearing your seat belt can cause you to exit the vehicle at an accelerated speed during an accident and can make you a danger to others around possibly causing injuries or death, hence why your required to wear a seat belt as you stay within the vehicle. Now that you know 1 of many logical reasons to wear one we will not have to hear this argument again in a thread where it doesn't belong and we can stick to orig topic

There is also documented accidents where seat belts have killed people also...just an FYI...but you are right WE should stay on topic...and the topic of this thread is government intervention...and the government intervening with seat belts should follow underneath that...

[tutall]

It's not a matter of where they are better off. Of course they are better off in a clean, healthy environment. My point is this: drug-using parents collecting welfare is probably a lot LESS expensive on the system than kicking the adults off of welfare and having to find placements for the children who now have NO ONE able to look after them.

I agree with you... But I guess my point was eventually, chances are those kids are going to end up with someone other than the parents anyways (either physically or financially speaking)... Whether the state pays for it now or later someone is going to.

[tutall]

Ok enough not wearing your seat belt can cause you to exit the vehicle at an accelerated speed during an accident and can make you a danger to others around possibly causing injuries or death, hence why your required to wear a seat belt as you stay within the vehicle. Now that you know 1 of many logical reasons to wear one we will not have to hear this argument again in a thread where it doesn't belong and we can stick to orig topic

So... Are you for a complete smoking ban? I am positive smoking creates far more deaths per year than not wearing a seat belt... Im not saying it isnt logical to wear a seat belt... Im simply stating it shouldnt be up to the government to tell me to wear it.... And you exiting the vehicle causing damage to another person is far far down the list of reasons it is the law.... Most of the law is because of the money it supposedly saves people in Insurance costs because of the deaths averted from wearing them. I have never heard of a single instance of a person flying from a vehicle causing an injury to someone they struck

[duane1969]

I am not totally against the idea, but I have a couple of questions:

I assume your company pays for your drug testing, who pays to drug test welfare recipients?

What happens to the innocent kids that have their parent(s) suddenly cut off from benefits?

The welfare department pays. What does a drug test costs? $50? $75? The first welfare check that one person loses will cover the costs of the test for several people. If just one of every ten people tested loses their welfare it won't take long for the other nine test costs to be covered.

First I will say that it is the responsibility of the parents to worry about feeding their kids, not the government's. Expecting the govt to keep putting money in the hands of drug abusing parents because of the children is misguided.

With that said, for a first offense I would only take the cash assistance, not the food stamps, medical care or housing assistance. Taking the cash would at least make it difficult to buy drugs. Second offense the kids are taken for 90 days while they go thru forced rehab. After they return they get the kids and their welfare back minus the cash assistance. Third offense, they lose custody of the kids, are charged with appropriate criminal offenses and incarcerated. When they are released they are required to find work and repay all assistance that they received and are required to pay child support.

[theonedru]

The welfare department pays. What does a drug test costs? $50? $75? The first welfare check that one person loses will cover the costs of the test for several people. If just one of every ten people tested loses their welfare it won't take long for the other nine test costs to be covered.

First I will say that it is the responsibility of the parents to worry about feeding their kids, not the government's. Expecting the govt to keep putting money in the hands of drug abusing parents because of the children is misguided.

With that said, for a first offense I would only take the cash assistance, not the food stamps, medical care or housing assistance. Taking the cash would at least make it difficult to buy drugs. Second offense the kids are taken for 90 days while they go thru forced rehab. After they return they get the kids and their welfare back minus the cash assistance. Third offense, they lose custody of the kids, are charged with appropriate criminal offenses and incarcerated. When they are released they are required to find work and repay all assistance that they received and are required to pay child support.

There are more than a few cases in the Seattle area of people selling their food stamps here to buy drugs and such.

[duane1969]

There are more than a few cases in the Seattle area of people selling their food stamps here to buy drugs and such.

I know it happens. That is why follow up testing and the 2nd offense/3rd offense are needed.

[tutall]

In Indiana food stamps and other benefits come on a debit card... Companies are required to check ID with every state issued card that comes through. If a company swipes that card for anyone other than the name imprinted on the card they face stiff fines. I know it isnt perfect as you can go out, buy the stuff, then sell it or whatever but it is a better system than most and at least requires them to be at the store seeing what they are buying and choosing to give it away for drugs or whatever.

[duane1969]

In Indiana food stamps and other benefits come on a debit card... Companies are required to check ID with every state issued card that comes through. If a company swipes that card for anyone other than the name imprinted on the card they face stiff fines. I know it isnt perfect as you can go out, buy the stuff, then sell it or whatever but it is a better system than most and at least requires them to be at the store seeing what they are buying and choosing to give it away for drugs or whatever.

They use a card here too. I know of at least one woman who got busted buying food stamps at a discount rate. She would swipe their card like they had bought $100 in groceries and then give them like $50 or $75 in cash back. It happens but that is almost out of the control of the government.

If taking away the cash benefits doesn't work then harsher methods are called for. Forced rehab, work requirements, incarceration, etc. are options.