In a bid to address the city's drug crisis — and the crime and homelessness that come with it — San Francisco voters shifted right in Tuesday's primary, approving ballot measures that aim to boost enforcement powers.
Yes. It does make it okay. Welfare should be given on no conditions. If they want to spend it on drugs and won’t be able to afford food because of it, that is their choice. Why should people who get assistance be told how to spend that money? Should they also be restricted from buying beer with that money? How about sugary sodas? How far are you willing to go to tell people how they should be allowed to spend the money given to them when that is not a requirement for anyone else’s money?
The system should also offer them assistance to break addictions regardless.
If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want. But what about when those drugs not only are hurting them, but are toxically hurting the same society that gave them the money in the first place? What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
If I’m a bartender and I see somebody getting way too intoxicated, to the point they are hurting themselves or others, should I keep serving them more drinks? Or even buy them more myself? Hey man, here’s your car keys and a drink! Have a good night!
FYI, there actually is a tax on sugary sodas in this city… because too much can be harmful for everyone.
So they should be barred from buying anything with sugar in it because they might be diabetic.
or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want.
So they should be barred from buying beer at anywhere that sells it from a bar to a supermarket, right? Alcohol can make people violent.
What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
So they should be barred from buying anything sharp in case they have a psychotic break. No kitchen knives, no pencils.
Or… we just don’t put rules on giving people money since, believe it or not, people not on assistance can have major drug problems and serious mental illness and they can spend their money however they want.
I think the argument for whether it is morally acceptable to supply someone with drugs, substances, weapons, or whatever else it is that that can kill them or others is always going to be a tough call, and we can sit here on it until the cows come home and still be in the same place honestly.
If you read the article though, it says that the measure doesn’t even stop them from receiving the funds, even if they are still using. They can literally use and won’t stop receiving receiving the funds, as long as they are open to treatment options.
They should be yes. The only time mandatory pre-screening should be acceptable is if your job requires zero intoxication to legally perform your job. Like operating machinery, driving, etc. Beyond that it should only come up if there is good reason to believe that you are using and it is affecting your performance. Then you should be given the option to go through treatment before being fired comes up as an option.
No, it isn’t. That’s my point. Everyone else is given money without such preconditions. No matter how severe their drug addiction. Only the desperate have such placed on them.
Oh I see. When you said paychecks, I thought you were referring to the welfare checks, and that they will still receive them even while using. That is what I said that the measure provides for.
And no, it doesn’t apply to money earned from working at a job because the money people earn at their jobs is not taxpayer money being given with the intent to help someone get back on their feet, like welfare is.
Yes. It does make it okay. Welfare should be given on no conditions. If they want to spend it on drugs and won’t be able to afford food because of it, that is their choice. Why should people who get assistance be told how to spend that money? Should they also be restricted from buying beer with that money? How about sugary sodas? How far are you willing to go to tell people how they should be allowed to spend the money given to them when that is not a requirement for anyone else’s money?
The system should also offer them assistance to break addictions regardless.
If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want. But what about when those drugs not only are hurting them, but are toxically hurting the same society that gave them the money in the first place? What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
If I’m a bartender and I see somebody getting way too intoxicated, to the point they are hurting themselves or others, should I keep serving them more drinks? Or even buy them more myself? Hey man, here’s your car keys and a drink! Have a good night!
FYI, there actually is a tax on sugary sodas in this city… because too much can be harmful for everyone.
So they should be barred from buying anything with sugar in it because they might be diabetic.
So they should be barred from buying beer at anywhere that sells it from a bar to a supermarket, right? Alcohol can make people violent.
So they should be barred from buying anything sharp in case they have a psychotic break. No kitchen knives, no pencils.
Or… we just don’t put rules on giving people money since, believe it or not, people not on assistance can have major drug problems and serious mental illness and they can spend their money however they want.
I think the argument for whether it is morally acceptable to supply someone with drugs, substances, weapons, or whatever else it is that that can kill them or others is always going to be a tough call, and we can sit here on it until the cows come home and still be in the same place honestly.
If you read the article though, it says that the measure doesn’t even stop them from receiving the funds, even if they are still using. They can literally use and won’t stop receiving receiving the funds, as long as they are open to treatment options.
Fine, then people should be allowed to receive their paychecks if they use drugs as long as they are open to treatment options.
Fair, right?
They should be yes. The only time mandatory pre-screening should be acceptable is if your job requires zero intoxication to legally perform your job. Like operating machinery, driving, etc. Beyond that it should only come up if there is good reason to believe that you are using and it is affecting your performance. Then you should be given the option to go through treatment before being fired comes up as an option.
You’re saying the opposite of what I’m saying.
I’m saying that if drug screening is a requirement for assistance, it should be a requirement for all paychecks as well.
Otherwise, you’re just punishing poor people for doing the same things people aren’t poor do- get addicted to drugs.
Yes. That’s literrally what the measure says. That’s what we voted for.
The measure puts that same restriction on employee paychecks on all businesses in the city? Really?
Uh, where are you seeing that? That’s not part of the measure, as far as I can tell.
https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/measure-f
No, it isn’t. That’s my point. Everyone else is given money without such preconditions. No matter how severe their drug addiction. Only the desperate have such placed on them.
Oh I see. When you said paychecks, I thought you were referring to the welfare checks, and that they will still receive them even while using. That is what I said that the measure provides for.
And no, it doesn’t apply to money earned from working at a job because the money people earn at their jobs is not taxpayer money being given with the intent to help someone get back on their feet, like welfare is.