6 Comments

• superdave524 says:

  March 28, 2009 at 1:49 pm

  Legislators are always looking for simple solutions to complex problems, and it almost always makes things worse.

  » Reply to this Comment «
• Enigma says:

  March 28, 2009 at 7:27 pm

  While, I cannot speak to the motives of the legislators pushing this bill, as the child of a now recovering addict, rehabilitation was never an option until she hit rock bottom. I won’t air my dirty laundry here, but in the end, we, her children, turned out to be enablers by trying to do what we thought was right. Given my experience, I agree that someone who tests positive for drugs should not receive unsupervised financial support. I’m all for someone receiving the basic 3-hots and a cot and child-care arrangements if required while they are attending in-patient treatment, but to continue to fund their lifestyle with no accountability only perpetuates their condition. Take it from a recovering enabler, doing the right thing sometimes seems so wrong.

  » Reply to this Comment «
• John in IL says:

  March 28, 2009 at 9:03 pm

  One word: Unconstitutional.

  » Reply to this Comment «
• Quakerjono says:

  March 29, 2009 at 11:56 am

  Enigma makes a very valid point. Part of treatment is the visceral realization that continuing down the path one is on is no longer an option (assuming one wishes to continue living). This is not “punishment”, although it may seem to be such, but simple recovery psychology. Having an institutionalized enabling system prevents this realization in many cases and thus prevents honest attempts at treatment, recovery and maintenance.

  Ultimately, though, like it or not, this type of legislation is where we’re moving to. “Get Healthy Because We Can No Longer Afford Your Rock And Roll Lifestyle” is becoming the norm for things like employee-sponsored health care. Where I work, for example, we own and manage our own health insurance (which is pretty spectacular, I must say, and we hope to export to the rest of the business world soon as our model saves MASSIVE amounts of money and ensures everyone gets the coverage they need and want). Once a year, we have to go in and have blood drawn. You can elect not to have this done, but to do so makes you ineligible for significant price reductions in your monthly premiums. While a complete general blood workup is performed, testing things like HDC/LDC levels and blood sugar, they also test for tobacco use. If you’re a smoker, you’re offered options to help you quit. If you don’t exercise those options, then you don’t get the price breaks. The price breaks are significant, just as the impact of smoking on your health and eventual health care costs is significant.

  I suppose this could be seen as being “punishment” or somehow unfair to the smoker. I would argue, however, that it is a perfect embrace of freedom. No one’s saying you can’t smoke, but no one’s acting like your guardian angel, either, and protecting you from the costs of your actions. The thing is, it works. If you hit folks in the wallet, it motivates change. I know at least three people who started with me and who smoked who have since given it up because the cuts were too attractive to ignore.

  So, in a very real way, I think bills like the congressman’s treat people like actual adults. Real change must be supported and people who, through no fault of their own, are on hard times must be helped, but those who choose to live certain ways should not necessarily be protected from the consequences of their actions.

  » Reply to this Comment «
• John in IL says:

  March 29, 2009 at 9:15 pm

  I suppose this could be seen as being “punishment” or somehow unfair to the smoker. I would argue, however, that it is a perfect embrace of freedom. No one’s saying you can’t smoke, but no one’s acting like your guardian angel, either, and protecting you from the costs of your actions. The thing is, it works. If you hit folks in the wallet, it motivates change.

  One company’s policy is way different than governmnet policy. If I don’t like your company’s policy, I have a choice. I can either change my habits, pay the higher price or get a different job. If government mandated health insurance becomes a reality, I wouldn’t have that choice. Maybe I’m strange this way but I don’t want the government sampling my blood and/or urine on a yearly basis.

  » Reply to this Comment «
• Mark on Cape says:

  March 29, 2009 at 11:08 pm

  The problems with the state run checking numerous. Among them is:

  1. The cost of the bloodtests.

  2. False positives and negatives.

  3. Religious reasons for not having their bodies invaded.

  4. Unlike Quaker’s company’s smoking cessation program, there aren’t treatment programs available for people without healthcare (and even then they are piss-poor).

  5. Which points out that drug problems are primarily health issues, not willpower issues.

  6. It equates all drugs. Pot gets equated with cigarettes which is equated with morphine, heroin, oxycontin, which is equated with coke which is equated with speed. One can look at the list and note that all drugs are not as dangerous as each other.

  7. And where does this stop? You are overweight, so you have to lose weight or the job or benefits? You get a speeding ticket (since you know that speeders are more apt to get involved in an automobile accident)? How about if your spouse smokes and you are subject to second hand smoke? How about, since all research shows that married people are generally healthier than singles, that we make single people pay.

  We all know what this is about. The states are hurting for dough and so, like insurance companies, are trying to get out of paying benefits.

  I might be in favor of it if they made all of the management of the banks and other industries getting bailouts get checked for drugs, too. As well as all politicians…

  » Reply to this Comment «