I wanna state first that I do not view cannabis as a drug and feel that such a thought should be expressed before I comment on drug testing.
I disagree. Weed is a drug; therein lies both its medicinal and its psychotropic utility.
I do believe u should have to piss in a cup for welfare. I had to pee in one to help pay for it. But if your going out getting tweaked on Meth. Well you made yourself your own problem and should not be a problem of the tax payers. I don't like the thought if my tax money supporting tweakers. If u can't prove ur devoted enough to recovery to get clean from a deadly drug like Meth or heroin then I don't believe you'll use welfare for its intention. Welfare is temporary assistance but many have made it a career path. I work at a grocery store and daily I see sickening situations. Its not JUST me being a judgemental dick. I live in a very small town and am familiar with nearly everyone's story. I know many of these people are cooking Meth. I watch them send their kids down to buy the lobster crab corn and other produce when its on sale then go down the street and sale it as fresh for 2x the money. Its a daily event. Perhaps its more prevelant in my life because where I worked having to see it daily. But I truly believe that if u piss for anything but weed or a prescribed drug (in recommended doses) you should be denied any assistance but rehab until you can prove your worth a societal investment.
I would think we need to define what welfare is. There are several programs by which governments pay out support checks to various individuals. there's unemployment, there's AFDC if they still call it that, and there's, say, SSDI.
I personally think meth is a filthy drug that is singularly good at breaking previously functional people. But i cannot countenance a graded drug policy based on what ultimately has to be a subjective impression of that drug's harmfulness. I'm for derestricting all drugs, but setting legal boundaries on behavior. Imo a lot of drug testing is driven by insurers extorting employers these days. I'm amused by Racer's proposal to test judges, Senators et al. ... it would be poetic, but still incorporates the idea that drug testing is moral.
Abortion... the interesting one lol. I realize the irrationality of my views toward this one fully. However that doesn't change the fact that my mind enjoys the thought (of the jury not abortion). First off... officially let me say in terms of abortion... its not something I can condone.. its not something I would support. However I am not the type that will crudity you for a personal choice. I don't wish to hear about it but I would hope that those involved wouldn't hope to speak of it... if they do well then abortion is likely the least of their issue.. that said I would be perfectly o.k. with people having to face the peers judgment before being granted permission. Anyone can argue the idea of pregnancy and parameters of abortion but its can't be disputed that life begins at conception.. (intelligent life? Probably not hats another debate)
Life begins even before conception. At conception, we get a new life that is on its way to being human. Imo it is valuable however to assign personhood ... the crucial step from "human" (my molars are human, after all) to "a human", a person with reasonable expectations of societal recognition and protection.
But a life none the less and I value that greatly. Therefore I couldn't support it. I think its reasonable that unless it directly effects the welfare if the mother or is a product of rape.. the person(s) responsible for conception should have to convince at least 7 of 12 that they should be allow to terminate. I don't think "cause.I'm 15" is a reasonable excuse. They'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an abortion would be the best option for everyone involved. But thus is one of those personal struggles I speak of because.my morals and heart feel such however my mind thinks
We are a world with limited room and resources and a living diversity that is unfathomable. Much like growing weed more nitrogen wont fix a k deficiency. My mind says hey.. its brutal but China's kinda got the right idea.. I know.ill catch shit for this.... but a 2 child limit is something I wouldn't exactly object to...immediate all fucked up lol. I love all life.. however in order to sustain that life much must be culled to allow for another. If u think orphanages are full now what about if there were no abortion? Population would explode and earth could be exhausted 20% sooner than projected. But were still a moral society and its wrong to kill the living.. I guess I'm one of those few who still battles moral over necessity for longevity.
Wow I'm way off track here lol. I believe that if u want to terminate an otherwise healthy conception through consensual means.. you should have to have a damn good reason... one good enough to sway the majority at least.. again.. I realize its impractical.. I try not and focus.on the things that don't directly effect my life. This "I didn't enjoy this so noone else should" attitude has a lot to do with mjs continued prohibition so I try not and perpetuate it. But sometimes its hard to not be the pessimist.
"The sooner the world comes around to my way of thinking the better off well all be" is not the approach I'm trying to convey hear.. so I hope I did not.
The rest of your post presumes that i accept as a premise that the early conceptus is a person. Imo there are two good places to look for the start of personhood: one is the traditional one of "the quickening", the time when the mother can first feel her fetus move.
The other is the age at which the fetus, if delivered prematurely, can survive
ex utero with normal levels of hospital care.
My beef with assigning personhood to early is that it raises an uttelry artificial hurdle to allowing abortions. Don't get me wrong! I view abortion as a consequential and distasteful option and procedure. I do not countenance late-term abortions unless they're extraordinary, and the life of the baby and mother are in the balance.
But I cannot see a defensible reason for banning or tightly restricting abortion that doesn't ultimately end in religious belief or feeling, e.g. sanctity of life. And I reflexively oppose anything that ends up beached on the shores of circular reasoning, essentially "because someone said so".
We've had such soft lives that unless we've served in combat, we've forgotten that relative valuation of human lives is often unavoidable. Considering lives to be beyond the hard decisions is a luxury of our times, and one that i predict won't hold. cn
