Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jobs = less crime/drug-addiction?

  • 13-12-2013 04:45PM
    #1
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭


    Since 'insert draconian/violent action' for resolving the problem of 'insert undesirable/dehumanized social group' (in this case 'junkies' and criminals in city center), seems to be the topic du jour, here's a thread with a different idea:
    Give these people, who have such poor prospects that they resort to crime or may end up stuck in a cycle of drug addiction - give them jobs.

    Slightly radical idea there perhaps but....I have this theory, that the problem of drug addiction (mainly cases where people become stuck and can't function well) and crime, might just have something to do with unemployment and associated lack of future prospects some people have, as a result of that?
    (it's disturbing really, that people don't see something this obvious, and direct their anger against whole subgroups of people - 'junkies' in this case - who are probably disproportionately victims of the crisis)

    Maybe we don't need to mete out violence to them, or chop off their giblets, in order to resolve this (and other) societal problems?


    I know a fair bit about economics and policies that can be used to recover from the economic crisis, and this method of funding (involves no consulting of Europe, no increase in taxes, or public debt, or interest paid on any debts), is likely good enough for government to restaff/expand the public services, and provide a jobs program (doing a whole host of things ranging from infrastructural development, to community services/development - or almost anything you can think of that is societally/economically useful), that could employ not just these people who would otherwise engage in crime and other trouble, but pretty much everyone who is unemployed (massively speeding up resolving of the economic crisis, as well).

    All of the above mentioned problems, are caused by the economic crisis and the associated unemployment and drop in public services (and lack of some services, like proper mental health treatment - which has forever been bad here), and these societal problems can not be fixed (only moved around or hidden), without resolving the economic crisis itself.

    The method of funding I link to above, is by far the most promising thing I have seen yet, that I think can actually realistically (even in the face of Europe's political problems) provide us with an economic recovery - and help solve all of these worsening societal problems as well.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    danniemcq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    explain all those execs on coke, the fast food people on weed, the musicians on heroin, the 9-5ers on e.

    Jobs do not mean less drugs jobs mean more drugs to cope with jobs!


  • #3
    Specialun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,068 ✭✭✭Specialun


    wut


  • #4
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    danniemcq wrote: »
    explain all those execs on coke, the fast food people on weed, the musicians on heroin, the 9-5ers on e.

    Jobs do not mean less drugs jobs mean more drugs to cope with jobs!
    Ok, drugtaking wasn't a good way for me to put it (just referring to the other threads on 'junkies' really), more talking about people who end up taking drugs and/or being homeless and/or resorting to crime, because of unemployment and the economic crisis.


  • #5
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,555 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    maybe... just maybe, junkies are junkies because they're junkies.


  • #6
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    maybe... just maybe, junkies are junkies because they're junkies.
    Or maybe, there's a reason (some precipitating events) for why they became addicted in the first place?

    Lack of future prospects, including lack of hope of getting a job, perhaps having become homeless and ending up on the streets; how are you going to get them off the streets and into a life where they can be self-sufficient (not relying on the state, for example), if you don't give them jobs?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    BraziliaNZ
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,671 ✭✭✭BraziliaNZ


    I've a great job and I like drugs - discuss


  • #8
    moxin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Or maybe, there's a reason (some precipitating events) for why they became addicted in the first place?

    Lack of future prospects, including lack of hope of getting a job, perhaps having become homeless and ending up on the streets; how are you going to get them off the streets and into a life where they can be self-sufficient (not relying on the state, for example), if you can't get them jobs?

    Tens of thousands of working class urban folk were jobless over the last 30yrs and teh vast majority never took heroin as an escape route. Its a personal choice to take it, the ones who are junkies now would still be getting high even if they had a job.


  • #9
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Having a job means having more money to buy drugs. w00t!


  • #10
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    People who are attracted to drugs will take the drugs. This isn't rocket science, it is the entire basis for drug legislation and damage control; the sad fact of the matter is that there are millions upon millions who will take drugs if they are available, less availability simply means that there are arithmetically less people damaging themselves. In this regard the legislation is a rip-roaring success. Only a small amount of potential drug-users are damaging themselves with drugs.


  • #11
    danniemcq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Ok, drugtaking wasn't a good way for me to put it (just referring to the other threads on 'junkies' really), more talking about people who end up taking drugs and/or being homeless and/or resorting to crime, because of unemployment and the economic crisis.

    you have to class alcohol and alcoholics the same way and there is plenty of that in workplaces no matter the job or wage.

    People do these things regardless. The only thing it might do is hide it better, behind closed doors you could say


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    BraziliaNZ wrote: »
    I've a great job and I like drugs - discuss
    Fair enough - no problems there or with drugtaking in general, just referring to other threads on 'junkies', and didn't want to put 'junkies' in the thread title.


  • #13
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    moxin wrote: »
    Tens of thousands of working class urban folk were jobless over the last 30yrs and teh vast majority never took heroin as an escape route. Its a personal choice to take it, the ones who are junkies now would still be getting high even if they had a job.
    You're asserting that without anything to back it really - if that were true, crime and related drug addiction wouldn't be such a big problem in the city center; it's not a co-incidence, that these societal problems happened to get a lot worse, once the economic crisis hit.

    If you want to reform people who commit crime, and people who may see such little future prospects for themselves that they become addicted to drugs, you need to first be able to offer them jobs to allow them to become self-sustaining again, and you need the services to help them recover too.


  • #14
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    Having a job means having more money to buy drugs. w00t!
    If that's what they want, fair enough - nothing wrong with that; at least then though, the people who previously did not have job, will then have the resources to be self-sufficient and will have future prospects, and if the drug taking was of a type that held them back, they'd have the resources to get help with that and get on with their lives.


  • #15
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    catallus wrote: »
    People who are attracted to drugs will take the drugs. This isn't rocket science, it is the entire basis for drug legislation and damage control; the sad fact of the matter is that there are millions upon millions who will take drugs if they are available, less availability simply means that there are arithmetically less people damaging themselves. In this regard the legislation is a rip-roaring success. Only a small amount of potential drug-users are damaging themselves with drugs.
    Ah I wish I left drugs out of the OP altogether - the drug taking isn't the problem, what is the problem, is the lack of availability of jobs, and how that causes some people to drop through societies cracks, and end up either:
    1: Resorting to crime, or
    2: Getting addicted to a drug that holds them back, preventing their recovery.

    If you don't provide jobs, both of these groups might grow and remain stuck, but if you do provide jobs, you get:
    1: Less crime, since people can earn money with jobs
    2: Both a reason to first try and recover personally (the job offers better future prospects for life in general), and also the means to be self-sufficient (keeping the drug habit if they like - the taking of drugs isn't the root problem).


  • #16
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    So, you're saying higher employment is a good thing?


  • #17
    moxin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You're asserting that without anything to back it really - if that were true, crime and related drug addiction wouldn't be such a big problem in the city center; it's not a co-incidence, that these societal problems happened to get a lot worse, once the economic crisis it.

    If you want to reform people who commit crime, and people who may see such little future prospects for themselves that they become addicted to drugs, you need to first be able to offer them jobs to allow them to become self-sustaining again, and you need the services to help them recover too.

    The crime and drug addiction is being carried out by a minority in the low thousands, about 1% of the population of Dublin(1.2m pop). The vast majority, 99.9% are not junkies. The reason the city centre has such a high concentration of them is the fact that all the drug treatment centres are mostly centred along the quays and in D1, drug addicts migrate to the area from all other suburbs for treatment(and abuse themselves).

    Offering jobs will not help. I see your point might be to distract them when they have too much time on their hands?
    Education is the key, one would want to be pretty thick to take heroin especially after 30yrs of seeing its devastating effects in your own community.


  • #18
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    So, you're saying higher employment is a good thing?
    I'm saying it's providing higher employment (full employment pretty much) is:
    1: Possible right now (as discussed in the OP), and
    2: It resolves the problems other threads are talking about, of crime in the city center, without resorting to ridiculous ideas like vigilantism and 'sterilizing junkies'.


  • #19
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    moxin wrote: »
    The crime and drug addiction is being carried out by a minority in the low thousands, about 1% of the population of Dublin(1.2m pop). The vast majority, 99.9% are not junkies. The reason the city centre has such a high concentration of them is the fact that all the drug treatment centres are mostly centred along the quays and in D1, drug addicts migrate to the area from all other suburbs for treatment(and abuse themselves).

    Offering jobs will not help. I see your point might be to distract them when they have too much time on their hands?
    Education is the key, one would want to be pretty thick to take heroin especially after 30yrs of seeing its devastating effects in your own community.
    Indeed, I'm not interested in emphasizing crime in the city center, or emphasizing drug addicted people as problematic (they aren't, and that would be oversimplifying a wider problem), again, just referring to all the other threads that are popping up about those topics.

    I think making sure there are jobs for available would help, because there will be some proportion of people engaging in crime, who would prefer the safer route of earning money with a job - a lot of these people do not have this option right now, due to the scarcity of jobs, and even if you put them through the justice system, what are they going to do when they come out again? They need jobs.

    It's nothing to do with distracting people, it's about giving them the opportunity to earn legitimately, and to break whatever negative cycle they are in. Without jobs, these societal problems just perpetuate and get worse.

    I agree with you there, that proper education is important too, and I think funding for that should be provided as well.


  • #20
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    So we should borrow more money, use that to create a load of new public sector jobs and then all our problems will be solved?


  • #21
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    So we should borrow more money, use that to create a load of new public sector jobs and then all our problems will be solved?
    You didn't read my OP, or are choosing to ignore much of it...
    KyussBishop wrote:
    ...
    I know a fair bit about economics and policies that can be used to recover from the economic crisis, and this method of funding (involves no consulting of Europe, no increase in taxes, or public debt, or interest paid on any debts), is likely good enough for government to restaff/expand the public services, and provide a jobs program (doing a whole host of things ranging from infrastructural development, to community services/development - or almost anything you can think of that is societally/economically useful), that could employ not just these people who would otherwise engage in crime and other trouble, but pretty much everyone who is unemployed (massively speeding up resolving of the economic crisis, as well).

    All of the above mentioned problems, are caused by the economic crisis and the associated unemployment and drop in public services (and lack of some services, like proper mental health treatment - which has forever been bad here), and these societal problems can not be fixed (only moved around or hidden), without resolving the economic crisis itself.

    The method of funding I link to above, is by far the most promising thing I have seen yet, that I think can actually realistically (even in the face of Europe's political problems) provide us with an economic recovery - and help solve all of these worsening societal problems as well.
    We don't need to borrow any money, or raise any taxes.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    TAN's aren't debt? Interesting...


  • #23
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    TAN's aren't debt? Interesting...
    TAN's involve zero interest payments - what exact problem do you see with them?


  • #24
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    You wouldn't, you know, be taking the odd snort yourself OP?

    Nobody is going to employ a junkie, you'd have to create the jobs from within the public sector. To do that will cost money. Back in the day they built work houses and made people build walls.

    Any modern infrastructure would entail skilled workers. Your average junkie doesn't come to mind.

    I read your fairly lengthy opening post, which then linked to another fairly lengthy post, and you didn't carry enough credibility into that post for me to continue.

    If you think ALL the unemployed should be given jobs to stop them becoming junkies, then let me know what you're on yourself.


  • #25
    Gandhi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Gandhi


    So TAN's are effectively free government bonds, with a maturity date of the next tax day? A kind of IOU from the tax man?

    When someone cashes in a E1M TAN, government tax take for that year is effectively reduced by E1M. What happens then? They increase taxes on someone else by E1M? Cut spending by E1M? Or borrow E1M?

    I just don't get the benefit of this.


  • #26
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    TAN's involve zero interest payments - what exact problem do you see with them?

    Well one problem I see is that you don't seem to understand what "zero coupon" means. ;)

    Appealing and all as it may sound, there are no "magic beans" type solutions out there where we can just get money for nothing (even for a short term) out of thin air.


  • #27
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    smcgiff wrote: »
    You wouldn't, you know, be taking the odd snort yourself OP?

    Nobody is going to employ a junkie, you'd have to create the jobs from within the public sector. To do that will cost money. Back in the day they built work houses and made people build walls.

    Any modern infrastructure would entail skilled workers. Your average junkie doesn't come to mind.

    I read your fairly lengthy opening post, which then linked to another fairly lengthy post, and you didn't carry enough credibility into that post for me to continue.

    If you think ALL the unemployed should be given jobs to stop them becoming junkies, then let me know what you're on yourself.
    Well, a government provided jobs program, that gave a 'job guarantee' would have to find a suitable job for them - and I don't think them being addicted to drugs would be good grounds for refusal.

    Temporary government provided jobs is exactly what I'm talking about (temporary, because such a program boosts the private sector through spending of worker wages, until the private sector absorbs all of the workers), and I've described in the OP, the method for which to fund that.

    Heh, I don't think all of the unemployed should be given jobs 'to stop them becoming junkies' ;) I think they should be given jobs, simply because the capability is there, and there is useful work to be done, and just in general because it's all-round better for society, the economy and the country.


  • #28
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Nobody is going to employ a junkie, you'd have to create the jobs from within the public sector. To do that will cost money. Back in the day they built work houses and made people build walls.

    One wonders what the incentive is to give up, in that case.:(


  • #29
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Gandhi wrote: »
    So TAN's are effectively free government bonds, with a maturity date of the next tax day? A kind of IOU from the tax man?

    When someone cashes in a E1M TAN, government tax take for that year is effectively reduced by E1M. What happens then? They increase taxes on someone else by E1M? Cut spending by E1M? Or borrow E1M?

    I just don't get the benefit of this.
    They would have no maturity date - can redeem them at next tax day, or a year later if you like etc. (but yes, they probably would be redeemed at the next tax date anyway); they are like an IOU, yes.

    It reduces tax intake, but allows a huge amount of room for expanding spending regardless - any lost tax intake can simply be countered for with reissuing the same amount in TAN's again the next year - so long government isn't using TAN's for too high a percentage of government spending, you can keep on going like this as long as you like.


    The benefit, is that government can massively expand spending, and provide full employment with that, and this is exactly what the private sector needs in order to recover economically.
    It helps resolve a lot of these societal problems mentioned in the thread, and gets everyone working/earning - ending the economic crisis for us, much faster than how things are now.

    One the economy is recovered, government can then wind-down issuance and circulation of TAN's.


  • #30
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,788 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Since 'insert draconian/violent action' for resolving the problem of 'insert undesirable/dehumanized social group' (in this case 'junkies' and criminals in city center), seems to be the topic du jour, here's a thread with a different idea:
    Give these people, who are addicted to drugs or who have such poor prospects that they resort to crime - give them jobs.
    People took far more drugs during the boom when they had disposable income. Drugs and lack of jobs aren't really the source of addicts problems they're just a symptom.

    Even if we could find all these jobs and forced junkies to go into these jobs everyday it wouldn't automatically turn them into upstanding citizens full of self worth.

    I think these problems start in childhood, these people have to adapt to a life of surviving with little hope of advancing themselves out of their current social standing. Fixing that will go someway to preventing people from becoming addicted to drugs. At the end of the day though, drugs are fun and there are always going to be people who want to take them and there'll be a smaller amount who won't be able to control their use of the drug.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    Well one problem I see is that you don't seem to understand what "zero coupon" means. ;)

    Appealing and all as it may sound, there are no "magic beans" type solutions out there where we can just get money for nothing (even for a short term) out of thin air.
    People don't invest in these TAN's, they are paid in them - I know exactly what 'zero coupon' is (as does anyone who can type it into Google).

    You need to explain what exact fault you think there is - if someone just implies a fault, without an explanation, that allows them to:
    1: Never explain what the actual fault is supposed to be, thus avoiding a counterargument, and
    2: Continue to use it as an implied argument, and just say "it's obvious" - turning it into a purely rhetorical argument (which doesn't even have to be true).

    So if there's a criticism you have of it, it needs to be explained, not just implied.


Advertisement