Posted on 03/10/2014 11:59:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
Hey, I’ve noticed the same thing also.
The nearest Marathon station has a little note by the counter “SNAP cards good for all food items with a nutritional label.”
I go to local my local Food Lion and a great number of customers use SNAP cards. They’ll run all the food through, use the SNAP card to pay for all authorized food items and then pay cash for the rest.
If the negative aspects of drug use are lowered motivation, lowered intelligence, lack of coordination, poor decision making, etc... Aren't the penalties for use baked into the action it's self?
To put it another way, what should the proper penalty be for sticking your finger into a light socket?
My opinion is 110V. 50 volts would be too few and 170 volts would be too many.
The proper penalty for the poor decision of drug use should be facing the consequences of the poor decision itself. When goverments try to mitigate the consequences by giving out free medical care, EBT cards, WIC, Welfare, SSI, etc... they are acting unjustly. When they try to punish the behavior by heaping on extra consequences they are acting unjustly.
As a "resolute" conservative you should know that Government only creates problems. It doesn't solve them.
I don’t use it and never have and neither have any of my children. I don’t want any of my tax dollars going to any rehab for users and I don’t want to have to burden the costs derived from companies having to offer rehab in insurance bene’s or lost man hours at work resulting in higher prices, property damage from people now using it openly while driving, cost of judicial proceedings etc... The last thing people on the government dole (46% of our denizens) is more access to dope.
That said I don’t like shouldering the cost for alcohol usage either. When you can guarantee me that I am 100% not affected then I will say whatever you want to do.
Shouldn't the activity that has a law it against be the part where it affects you not the activity itself?
If you own a dog, can you guarantee 100% that it won't affect any of your neighbors? Shouldn't the law step in WHEN your dog affects your neighbor and not WHEN THERE IS A CHANCE it will affect him?
Interesting. Pick any given year you worked in the field...how many people on your beat died over trying to control their piece of the meth/heroin/pot trade?
That is not easy to answer, my beat covered a whole state basically, but I was assigned a regional area to concentrate in of about 12 counties that had rural and small urban areas. I did not work on the “beat” level, I dealt with distribution systems and eradication efforts (both MJ and meth labs in the late 80’s). I did about 2 years of UC work in the larger cities in my younger days. I did see some folks (users) that died. There was also dope related murders but homicide would work those cases.
Okay, fair enough. Let’s try one that is easier to quantify: how many people were killed trying to control the scotch, vodka and cigarette trade in your state that year?
If you know the answer please tell? How much does the government actually confess to? Take the case of prohibition, the government was not interested in enforcing it since majority of government liked their spirits as well. I have always contended that their is a back door relationship with government and organized crime. They both make profit on each other and have no interest in impeding the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.