>talking to liberal
>tells liberal I think welfare recipients should be drug tested
>liberal says "You dont know what theyre going through to be using drugs they shouldnt be getting nothing"
>say welfare should be going to people with disabilities and single parents instead of being used to fund somebodys drug addiction
>liberal - "not an argument"
Are liberals really this stupid
>Are liberals really this stupid
No, they are much worse then that.
As someone who takes hydrocodone literally every day due to osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, I'm almost positive those are acetaminophen.
>say welfare should be going to people with disabilities and single parents
kys, commie scum
Either that or Ibuprofen.
Definitely have that "store brand" look.
You can get disability for a disease like diabetes, why not a disease like alcoholism?
careful now, when they run out of responses to your arguments they get violent
As someone who has diabetes and shoots ritalin daily, I'm positive that's Hawaiian punch in the needle.
Because alcoholism isn't a disease; it's a lack of willpower.
If you lose your foot gets amputated because you didnt' control your diabetes, isn't that also due to lack of will power or self discipline? Still can get disability tho. Why not alcoholism?
You're right. We need to stop supporting type 2s.
Type 1 is inborn. Type 2 is preventable and reversable.
The liberal was "right" in saying that it isn't an argument.
You didn't clarify why welfare cannot go to both druggies, as well as people with disabilities and single parents.
That was a flaw on your end.
Addiction should not be classified as a "disease". A disease should refer to something beyond your control, either an external entity that's attacking your body (bacteria/virus/etc), or something wrong with your body such as a genetic defect or cancer.
Your poor life choices are not a "disease", and it's entirely within your power to change them.
>focusing on drug testing welfare recipients instead of not letting government get filled up with Jewish bankers
lmfao
>tax dollars going to people who need it
OR
>tax dollars going to people who buy crack
Pick one.
how about no welfare at all then you don't have to worry about drug testing
That's the issue; you didn't make a case that this is a dichotomy; that welfare can only go to one of these two groups that you're specifying.
I agree with you, but your argument is poor.
There's a reason people abuse substances and have addictions that may beyond their control; abuse, poverty, lack of opportunity, childhood home, etc...
We recognize depression as a disease, why not addiction?
Because you can stop drinking whenever the fuck you want. You can't just make diabetes go away.
Then how should I make it better?
>Because you can stop drinking whenever the fuck you want
If only it was that easy.
t. former alcoholic
>what is DT?
>my lack of self control is tax payers' problem
Fuck off.
I believe that the US government did look into this at some point and figured it was something like 4-7% of welfare recipients using drugs, and that it would cost more to perform mandatory drug tests on all welfare recipients rather than just accept that 4-7% were using the money for drugs - like it was actually more cost beneficial just to continue paying those people instead of testing everyone.