It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1. Does my conclusion logically follow my premises, if I can show them to be correct?
2. Why might my first premise be incorrect?
3-5. Same question for my second third and fourth premises.
Because there are other options available for the 'minimizing of harm to men' beyond merely taking privileges.
Howard presented to the district court numerous studies supporting the FIA's contentions that controlled substance abuse negatively affects the ability of an individual to obtain and retain employment and to be a responsible and effective parent; that the incidence of controlled substance abuse is higher among recipients of welfare benefits than in the population as a whole; that substance abuse by parents contributes substantially to child abuse and neglect; and that controlled substance abuse is a significant barrier to economic self-sufficiency.
Rather, we think that the evidence suggests that the Michigan program imposes a condition on the plaintiffs' receiving the program benefits, and that there has been no showing that the condition is unreasonable. Our conclusion is premised on the language of 42 U.S.C. � 601(b), which explicitly negates any claim of entitlement to any state program funded under the PRWORA, and the reasoning of the Court in Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971), an action brought by a welfare recipient who claimed that requiring her to submit to home visits by caseworkers as a condition of receiving benefits constituted an unreasonable search and violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 314. The Court assumed that the home visit was a search and held that the search was reasonable, id. at 318. The Court considered the public interest in aiding the dependent children of recipients; the public interest in insuring that welfare benefits are spent on their proper objects; the nonintrusive, limited, means of the search; the civil and noncriminal nature of the objects of the information gained from the search; the impracticability of obtaining a warrant; and the consensual nature of the home visit, id. at 318-24, and concluded that the condition itself was reasonable, and the plaintiff was free to refuse to permit the visits but could not then complain about the benefits' being withheld.
My opponent appears even to argue that this victim status confers on the individual a right to obtain illegal narcotics as a means of coping with a disadvantaged condition.
The problem is serious, with newer drugs causing twice as many drug injuries and deaths as older drugs approved for the same purpose.
This problem has been going on since 1992 when the FDA started taking money from Big Pharma so as to fast track the drug approval process – which is more akin to buying protection from the mob than to drug safety. 
The CIA's operational directorate, in other words that's their covert operations, para-military, dirty tricks — call it whatever you want — has for at least 40 years that we can document paid for a significant amount of its work through the sales of heroin and coc aine. — Guerrilla News Network's Interview with Christopher Simpson
There are 47 million school age kids in America, currently over 27 million of them try drugs and alcohol each year.
Drug-motivated felonies such as burglary don't count.
Should people who kidnap six year old boys to gain leverage in drug feuds be walking free on our streets?
2. If the right to freedom can be restricted to prevent such crimes, then why must the offender retain the privilege of receiving an income without working?
In the censored chapter the authors, three leading addiction researchers, compare the dangers of marijuana, as documented by science, against those of the legal drugs alcohol and nicotine and illegal opiates.
In dry, factual language they point out that where risks exist these are actually more serious for these two legal drugs.
They exposed the double standards that are being applied in the drug debate, and according to an insider quoted by New Scientist some WHO officials went nuts. Citation 3
Why should Medicare not be retracted from individuals who ‘need’ their antidepressants if these antidepressants have shown to negatively influence the individual’s ability to function properly in society?
How does the actions of some Americans (CIA) who are working for the American way of life affect the decision making capacity of high schoolers first being introduced to drugs?
What other options are available to dissuade from drug crimes than the rescinding of welfare?
Are all ‘drug criminals’ a drain to society?
How would it be possible for the lower classes to function in a non violent way to their ‘lot in life’ without chemical manipulation of their physiologies, legal or illicit?
But specific drug offenses are usually either attributed to the ‘major players’ whom smuggle for huge sums of money (not much need for welfare there), minor players whom make a moderate living distributing narcotics (again, not much a need for welfare, though welfare may supplement these incomes, moderately) and users, whom likely require welfare.
…the best I can honestly do is to acknowledge as a matter of record that the CIA has engaged in drug trafficking, that this necessarily increases access to drugs and ability to experiment…
Since 1996, thirteen states have legalized medical marijuana use: AK, CA, CO, HI,
ME, MI, MT, NV, NM, OR, RI, VT, and WA.
4. Please clarify exactly where you draw the line between what is and what is not a serious narcotics crime?
Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs, such as coc aine and amphetamines – rates that are in line with the drug use rates of the general population.
Seventy percent of all illicit drug users (and presumably a much higher percentage of alcohol users), ages 18-49, are employed full-time. My Emphasis
The rationale for drug testing is based on myth, not fact. According to a federal study, "[t]he percentage of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or drugs [is] relatively small and consistent with the general US population and those not receiving welfare benefits."
Other studies indicate a somewhat greater rate of overall drug consumption among welfare recipients -- mainly use of marijuana - but indistinguishable rates of drug abuse, especially for drugs other than marijuana.  My Emphasis
Do you claim that drugs (illegal and legal combined) prevent more violence than they cause?
2. Which is a better response to the double standard in the drug debate: to make harmful prescription drugs illegal or to start treating all drugs the same way we now treat prescription drugs?
3. Do you believe that people on welfare who are involved in drug crime are likely to use that money, in one way or another, on drugs?
5. What should be the standard for determining which drugs are illegal and how their use should be prevented?