Ways to make some programs work better

[Minionman]

People right now argue a lot about ways to make different programs work better i nschools, crime, etc. A lot of this arguing seems ot be about "public vs. private schools", or other two sided arguments for different programs, and less is about how to make those programs work better, so here's some ideas for that.

For legalizing drugs: Yes, right now think it should be done. But there's more to do than simply legalizing them than getting rid of the laws that would probably make the process go better. If drugs get legalized, it's pretty clear that they will get taxed, so in my opinions most, or at least a big chunk, of these taxes should be forced to go into druug treatment programs and health costs coming from drugs (accidents, heart attacks, etc.) People already pay these costs in a way now, and I'm guessing if drugs go legal that at the beginning more people will tell others about their health problems, so The money will be useful.

For more money into public schools: From what I heard schools seem to improve the best when they get smaller, and/or when more teachers per kid get added, so if extra money goes into schools than these are two areas where it should go. One complaint about public schools is that they try teaching all kids the same way, so ading money for this has made sense from what I've heard. I have also heard that some schools don't have enough basic supplies such as books, so that's somethign else where money needs to go. People have been trying things for making better schools for a long time, and have seen what works, what doesn't work, and why, so this information needs to get spread around.

For sending kids to private schools with vouchers. The two problems with this strategy that I've heard are that not enough money is given out, and that some people can't get to enough different schools to make the vouchers useful. The second problems may get dealt with by getting other new schools to start in areas where there aren't enough, maybe with extra money or tax changes or asking people. The second problems is one I haven't though of how to handle. I don't care which way people se to make schools better, as long as they work at getting people taught the the best way anyone can think of now.

[Griselda]

Congratulations, you've ust opened multiple cans of worms with a single post! :w00t:

At the risk of combining two separate threads, I think that a big part of the problem with education these days is the cost of medical benefits for school employees. A large percentage of the cost of hiring a new teacher is covering the employee's medical plan. If health insurance (or another form of health care) costs were more reasonable, more of the money for schools could actually go to the schools and not to the insurance companies.

[whyBish]

For legalizing drugs

For more money into public schools

Legalizing Drugs: Personally I'm against it. Decriminalisation of drugs (i.e. illegal, but not a criminal offense, so in the league with parking tickets etc.): Personally I'm against it. I understand the argument for it, but the problem I have is with those that will not be responsible. Can you imagine the number of household swith kids in them growing up in a pot-smoke filled house? Very recent news showed that in an Australian initiative police found 1 in 100 people were driving under the influence of drugs, which is higher than the rate for alcohol. Protection needs to be afforded to those that cannot protect themselves.
Classical finance states that the decision of where to source funds from is separate to the decision on what to uses those funds for. Saying that drug money goes back to drug schemes (or petrol tax goes into public transportation etc.) usually doesn't happen.

Public/Private schools: A private school is one you pay to get into, a public school is one you pay for even if you don't.
Funding is an opportunity cost question. Increasing spending on schools means you either increase income (i.e. taxes), or you take away money from somewhere else.
So you think schools should get more funding? What programs do you think deserve less funding? (Or alternatively, do you want to stifle (is stifle too emotive?) growth by increasing tax?)

We had a classic example of the Opportunity cost decision here in NZ last year. An overstayer, who was on trial for wife-beating, was on dialysis in NZ costing the country $1million a year. His home country had no dialysis treatment, so convicting him would have meant deportation and an effective death sentence. For this reason alone he was not convicted.
The result: His wife has left him claiming further abuse, and roughly eight non-criminal NZers miss out each year on life saving heart-bypass operations, just to support this guys dialysis costs. But the public thinks that not deporting him and condemning him to death is more important than the lives of other New Zealanders. Go figure <_<

[Nystul]

Drugs: For starters, you can't really lump them all together. Marijuana has one set of issues, but it's a completely different ballgame for some of the other things. If certain hallucinogens were legalized, for instance, I think I would stop walking the city streets at night. :ph34r:

But in any case, I look at our current regulation of alcohol and tobacco as an utter failure. We have so many issues stemming fromf these, but there is just no way you could make them illegal when they are such an accepted part of society. Personally, I'd rather not see marijuana added to that list. So then it's really a question of whether making it illegal is an effective deterrent at all, and it's difficult to find effective facts to support either position. You certainly can't say "Well, it works in the Netherlands, so it will work in Los Angeles too." Those locations are as similar as Kansas and Oz.

Public schools: We supposedly elect local school boards for a reason. I'd rather let them figure out the best way to run the school than you, me, Bush, Kerry, or the NEA. Really though, I'm not sure if education can be fixed in isolation. I wonder if the schools are really that bad, or if the family life is so bad that the kids don't really get a chance. Kids spend a lot more time at home than at school, and I can't imagine how teachers deal with entire classes of kids who start several years behind the curve, don't have any respect for authority, and don't care about anything in that is being taught to them.

School vouchers: I personally approve of the program (or at least certain versions of it), but it is not even close to qualifying as a "fix" for education. Compare the total capacity of private schools with the total number of school-age kids, and you will see that we either need about a million more private schools or we need to have decent public education. I don't think that private schools are inherently that much better than public schools, but moreso that it is easier to teach kids from families who would make sacrifices to send their kids to private schools (not to mention that if the kid still doesn't take things seriously, the private school can kick him out and dump him back on the public one).

[kandrathe]

"Protection needs to be afforded to those that cannot protect themselves."

>Shudder<

If you are talking about young people or the mentally infirm, then I agree. Your use in context was that you imply all adults need the chaperone of big brother to keep them from hurting themselves. I don't need that padded cell to keep me safe, thank you. What's worse is that not only do you furnish me with unwanted restriction, you expect me to pay for it as well.

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it
--Woodrow Wilson

Using your example; would it be better for the kids to be raised in a household where daddy gets high, or where daddy is locked away for 5-10 for drug use? Certainly there are many instances now where daddy is a drunk, and child protection should step in if the kids are not being cared for properly. But, just as often daddy is just an old sot and while being a poor role model, would be better than no daddy at all.

[whyBish]

>Shudder<

Using your example; would it be better for the kids to be raised in a household where daddy gets high, or where daddy is locked away for 5-10 for drug use?

would be better than no daddy at all.
[right][snapback]66793[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, I'm not sure where you got that from.

Protecting those that cannot protect themselves was a reference to:
a ) Children living in households with substance abuse (alcohol, smoking, drugs) etc. Or even not abuse but increased exposure. Decriminalisation will increase usage (or is this disputed?), increasing the number of children that will be exposed within the home.

b ) Protecting non-users from the users. Just like the drug testing example showed. 1/100 drivers in that sample were under the influence of drugs. That's bad enough, but do you really want the numbers to increase?

As to your example, again I'll state that it is just my opinion, but I would prefer the person locked up. Better no influence than a harmful one.

As to asking you to pay for it, I'm not sure where I said that either.

[kandrathe]

Yeah, I'm not sure where you got that from.

Protecting those that cannot protect themselves was a reference to:
a ) Children living in households with substance abuse (alcohol, smoking, drugs) etc.&nbsp; Or even not abuse but increased exposure.&nbsp; Decriminalisation will increase usage (or is this disputed?), increasing the number of children that will be exposed within the home.

b )&nbsp; Protecting non-users from the users.&nbsp; Just like the drug testing example showed.&nbsp; 1/100 drivers in that sample were under the influence of drugs.&nbsp; That's bad enough, but do you really want the numbers to increase?

As to your example, again I'll state that it is just my opinion, but I would prefer the person locked up.&nbsp; Better no influence than a harmful one.

As to asking you to pay for it, I'm not sure where I said that either.
[right][snapback]66852[/snapback][/right]

We'll have to disagree about this one. I believe that having two loving parents (whatever the quality), baring abuse, is better than one or none. What you are talking about is when the State (as in Police State) should intervene in the lives of citizens. Criminalizing something is the highest sanction on freedom that a state can impose on a behavior. We, the people, need to be very careful about what freedoms we allow the state to sanction (in the name of protecting us from ourselves).

The question is; Is the State criminalizing the right behavior? Criminalizing driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated makes sense, while criminalizing intoxicating substances may be too much an infringement on personal liberty. I think the history of "Prohibition" shows us that it does reduce the number of consumers, but vastly increase the number of criminals.

Make X illegal, and you have a new class of criminals. For example some recent State contemplations;
"Hey Mac, what are you in for?"

* "I cloned a human embyro."
* "I didn't turn in my father's WWII service revolver."
* "I collected a bunch of tunes from KaZaa."
* "I cut down a cactus."

There are too many "criminalized" behaviors in my book.

For example, above, you mentioned smoking cigarettes. Would you really want to see a State where children of habitual smokers are institutionalized to protect them from the deleterious health effects of second hand smoke? Then, we could have random State mandated blood tests to determine who is in compliance (much like queues for auto emissions inspections).

"As to your example, again I'll state that it is just my opinion, but I would prefer the person locked up. Better no influence than a harmful one."

Three things; Who pays for incarceration (or enforcement, hence, my reference to paying for my own shackles)? What pro-social behaviors are the incarcerated learning? When the "sentence" is completed how much better off is the society?

For many reasons, I believe that prison is the last possible sanction that the State should impose on an individual and only when the persons predilictions require the State to intervene for the safety of the citizens. We, as a society, would be better off if the bulk of the current prisons populations had been sentenced to court supervised therapy and probation. If you can keep a person engaged in the society, while providing for their "improvement", then the result will be a better society. Some people will catch on to the "wake up call" and sober up (so to speak), and some will not.

[jahcs]

"in the name of protecting us from ourselves."

I take personal responsibility for my actions and face the consequences of those actions. Many citizens don't. Many citizens also feel that their rights include infringing on the rights of others. That is why we have laws.

I agree that we need to be carefull and protective of our freedoms. There are valid reasons why you can't shoot a bald eagle, spear a whale, take a cactus from federal land, violate copyright protection, own military grade explosives, drive 120mph on public roads, etc.

[kandrathe]

"in the name of protecting us from ourselves."

I take personal responsibility for my actions and face the consequences of those actions.&nbsp; Many citizens don't.&nbsp; Many citizens also feel that their rights include infringing on the rights of others.&nbsp; That is why we have laws.

I agree that we need to be carefull and protective of our freedoms.&nbsp; There are valid reasons why you can't shoot a bald eagle, spear a whale, take a cactus from federal land, violate copyright protection, own military grade explosives, drive 120mph on public roads, etc.
[right][snapback]66883[/snapback][/right]

Sure, but there are appropriate resitiutions, fines, and penalties other than imprisonment. I'm not against laws when they are well crafted to balance freedom with social order, and that is the crux of it. People can enjoy a glass of wine once in a while without becoming social misfits, but the abolitionist elements have tried outlawing all alcohol. I see the same extremism in much of jurisprudence.

And what is so bad about having military grade explosives? :) Gophers gotta go!

[jahcs]

Agreement here on both counts. :)

And having military grade explosives isn't a problem. The storage, security, and use are. :P

[Minionman]

a ) Children living in households with substance abuse (alcohol, smoking, drugs) etc.&nbsp; Or even not abuse but increased exposure.&nbsp; Decriminalisation will increase usage (or is this disputed?), increasing the number of children that will be exposed within the home.

b )&nbsp; Protecting non-users from the users.&nbsp; Just like the drug testing example showed.&nbsp; 1/100 drivers in that sample were under the influence of drugs.&nbsp; That's bad enough, but do you really want the numbers to increase?

As to your example, again I'll state that it is just my opinion, but I would prefer the person locked up.&nbsp; Better no influence than a harmful one.
[right][snapback]66852[/snapback][/right]

No matter what the laws are, people growing up with drug problems in their houses are generally at a disadvantage no matter what people do about it.

If the person has a drug problem right now, they are more likely to be involved with other criminal types who, whether you argue about immorality of drugd or not, are more like to be involved with other types of crimes such as robberies, which adds a pretty clear bad influence that no one argues with. In area where drugs are very common, there is extra crime that causes problems for everyone in the area, not just the family, which is a pretty big effect on non users. With legalized drugs, these problems mostly go away. The replacement problems, more people using drugs, less ability to deal with abuse problems since abuses won't be cought as easily as drug usage plus abuse, effect far less people per drug user. I do agree that abuse problems would be a problem with this strategy, but the more drug users problems gets cancelled out.

Right now, with the drug strategies used now, if someone gets into a n accident or hurts someone on some problem drugs when they normallly wouldn't off of them, non users half ot pay for the courts, jails, hospital costs, and drug treatments. If drugs got legalized and taxed, or fined, or some other such money maker, these costs would go to users and there would be less, in my first post I said that this is where I thiunk the money should be made to mostly go. Since these costs exist already, increases in them because of extra users should get cancelled by less costs forthe crime parts and by extra money coming in.

The main problems I see are extra accidents do mean more people get killed from them, which I think less crime should take care of, and also extra family problems that may or may not also get cancelled out by less crime, and the lastr one I don;t have any ideas for that laws can do.