President Obama Q&A at the GOP House Issues Conference

**treydampier** · 02-02-2010, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

That certainly makes a lot more sense then Trey's suggestion.

Guess he doesn't have an answer.

Here is my answer, let people like you support other people's drug habits so that a few rehab clinics can make great profits off of tax dollars.

**NYCshaver** · 02-02-2010, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by treydampier

Here is my answer, let people like you support other people's drug habits so that a few rehab clinics can make great profits off of tax dollars.

Did that make sense to you when you read it back?
Because that's definitely not an answer to the question I asked.

Here's the question again:

How exactly will eliminating funding for drug rehabilitation programs help anyone?

If a person has a drug problem and wants help it's in societies best interest to help them get off drugs. Why you'd want to eliminate money for that is beyond me.

If you're so worried about saving tax payer money why aren't you complaining about the money we spend trying to enforce all the drug laws? That's a lot more then what we spend on funding drug rehabilitation.

**treydampier** · 02-02-2010, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Did that make sense to you when you read it back?
Because that's definitely not an answer to the question I asked.

Here's the question again:

How exactly will eliminating funding for drug rehabilitation programs help anyone?

If a person has a drug problem and wants help it's in societies best interest to help them get off drugs. Why you'd want to eliminate money for that is beyond me.

If you're so worried about saving tax payer money why aren't you complaining about the money we spend trying to enforce all the drug laws? That's a lot more then what we spend on funding drug rehabilitation.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. It probably won't help you personally, but it will help reduce pointless spending on people who choose not to help themselves. Drug addiction is a choice, so if you are on drugs (I'm assuming you might have been in rehab?) it really won't help you. It might actually help the drug addicts, because then they would have to take responsibility for their own problem and not drop their "needed help" on taxpayers who don't use drugs. If a person has insurance, then they can go to private facilities, but taxpayers, should not directly support drug habits with public funding because most drug rehab does not work effectively at getting people off drugs. This is especially true with the methadonians whose doses tend to increase with time rather than get reduced.
Hope this clears up my position.

**NYCshaver** · 02-03-2010, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by treydampier

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. It probably won't help you personally, but it will help reduce pointless spending on people who choose not to help themselves.

What? A person that goes to rehab is trying to help themselves.

It's nice how you think helping people is pointless spending.

Originally Posted by treydampier

Drug addiction is a choice, so if you are on drugs (I'm assuming you might have been in rehab?)

Why would you make a silly assumption like that? And you think people choose to get addicted?

Originally Posted by treydampier

it really won't help you. It might actually help the drug addicts, because then they would have to take responsibility for their own problem and not drop their "needed help" on taxpayers who don't use drugs.

They are taking responsibility by admitting they have a problem and trying to get help for it.

Originally Posted by treydampier

If a person has insurance, then they can go to private facilities, but taxpayers, should not directly support drug habits with public funding because most drug rehab does not work effectively at getting people off drugs.

How is funding drug rehab supporting drug habits? It's the opposite.
If drug rehab helps one person it's worth it. I notice you have no better
solution for helping these people.

Originally Posted by treydampier

This is especially true with the methadonians whose doses tend to increase with time rather than get reduced.
Hope this clears up my position.

Well it still didn't answer the question. In all this you haven't identified anyone this would help.

The taxpayers? You actually think the US spends that much money on funding drug rehab that the population would notice a difference in their tax payment if we stopped it?

And once again you ignored the fact that we spend a lot more on the war on drugs.

**Jasongreat** · 02-03-2010, 05:17 PM

How exactly will eliminating funding for drug rehabilitation programs help anyone?

It will force them to realize that change comes from within, not from outside sources.

If a person has a drug problem and wants help it's in societies best interest to help them get off drugs. Why you'd want to eliminate money for that is beyond me.

Why do they want help, because they realize they have a problem, or did a judge tell them they had a problem and that if they dont go to rehab they are going to jail? Saying someone has a problem with drugs is like saying a murderer has a problem with guns, just like guns cant work without the person, drugs cant take any thing that the individual isnt willing to give them. Most people who have problems with excessive drug use are using them to mask an underlying problem from what ive seen, the drugs arent the problem, the person thinking that drugs will solve their problems is what the problem is.

If you're so worried about saving tax payer money why aren't you complaining about the money we spend trying to enforce all the drug laws? That's a lot more then what we spend on funding drug rehabilitation.

I'm worried about all the money were wasting in this futile war, banning something never bans something, it only makes it more expensive and allows the government to gain revenue by fining the offenders. It also moves the buisiness to less than trustworthy sources, causing even more problems. People who want to do drugs are going to do drugs especially when they are told they cant, who should we be letting supply them, the black market or the free market, if demand subsides so will the supply. As long as there is demand there will be a supply no matter how many freedoms and resources we are willing to give the government.

**Jasongreat** · 02-03-2010, 06:00 PM

What? A person that goes to rehab is trying to help themselves.

I agree a person going to rehab is trying to help themselves but are they trying to help themselves stay out of jail, or get family members off their back, or to get off drugs. With the amount of people that relapse I would say not very many of them are there for the last reason.

It's nice how you think helping people is pointless spending.

Its nice how you think the only way you can help people is by spending money.

Why would you make a silly assumption like that? And you think people choose to get addicted?

I agree that was a silly assumption.
Here is where I am sure I will get the biggest disagreement: There is no such thing as addiction. It is an excuse people have invented to make themselves feel better, they dont want to quit but everyone else wants them to quit, so by coming up with this thing called addiction it allows them an out. Like, I really want to quit and am trying to quit but im addicted and I cant. On the otherhand there is definitely a thing called dependence, when a drug they have been ingesting replaces chemicals being made by their body they are dependent on the drug. There are as many or more "legal" drugs that cause dependence too though. The other thing is habit, we humans are creatures of habit and once we pick one up it is very hard, not anywhere near impossible, but very hard to break them.

They are taking responsibility by admitting they have a problem and trying to get help for it.

Not neccessarily, if they have been forced to be there, they are most likely concentrating on the evil done to them by those who sent them there, not the evil caused by their excessive use of drugs. Not saying they are right or wrong, just pointing out the realities, imo.

How is funding drug rehab supporting drug habits? It's the opposite.
If drug rehab helps one person it's worth it. I notice you have no better
solution for helping these people.

Its not, but it is supporting government institutions more than supporting drug users. Think about all the jobs that would be lost if the war on drugs ended tommorrow. No more drug testing facilities, no more narcotics cops, no more DEA, no more rehabs, less judges, less prosecutors, less jails(less construction jobs) and we could keep going it is like a spider web spreading all throughout the economy. Now everyone of those people whos job depends on the war on drugs and are basically government supported(even when a private buisiness), so they vote to save themselves not to save others only they would never admit it.

The taxpayers? You actually think the US spends that much money on funding drug rehab that the population would notice a difference in their tax payment if we stopped it?

I know a fair portion of taxpayers would feel it in their wallets, lots of those being forced to go to rehab, or are paying fines are taxpayers. Its not exactly thier tax payment but they are still losing money out of their paychecks that they could use for other things, like improving their life so they feel like they have something to lose and therefore choosing for themselves to keep their drug abuse at bay. And it is drug abuse and not abused by drugs, see the difference, one places the ownership of the problem on the individual, the other places the ownership on the drugs. Which has a better chance of changing the individual or an inantimate object? My vote is for the individual.

**NYCshaver** · 02-03-2010, 07:03 PM