Should we reward people for doing what they should anyway?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I am conflicted over this Local News 8 report that our Idaho legislature is considering a bill to reward kids for staying drug free. Some lawmaker (anyone know who it was, and their party affiliation?) has put a bill up that would grant a $2,000 Idaho college scholarship for students who pledge to stay off drugs, maintain a 2.5 average GPA, and submit to random drug tests.
Why am I conflicted? It seems like a great idea, rewarding students who stay off drugs with a little educational money, and that money stays in our state economy. However one of the reasons we are so cheap in Idaho is because we are afraid of wasting money, we are afraid of not seeing measurable results from our spending. I am not sure this idea would actually help much.
The first problem that comes to mind is that this scholarship would probably just go to kids who were not going to do drugs anyways. Kids who are messed up on drugs already have their priorities mixed up, so offering a measly amount of money (it would not even pay for a single semester) is not likely to change their minds.
The other problem is then we are rewarding people for doing a normal thing they should be doing anyway. Didn’t the comedian Chris Rock tell a joke about some dads bragging about doing things they were supposed to do anyway? Since when does doing the norm merit reward?
On the other hand, maybe our society has declined to the point that America needs to reward what should be normal behavior. I would certainly prefer seeing an optional system like this than a mandatory one. Some people will protest the principle of drug testing, but I think if it’s optional it’s up to the individual.
What other average things could or should we reward? Would you submit to a physical fitness and body-fat percentage test each year to earn a tax break? I would keep myself in shape for as low as a hundred-buck tax break! How about reading to your kids for thirty minutes each night? Cleaning your house? Keeping your teeth cavity-free? Bathing?
I’ve come across a few people I would gladly give them a buck to bathe themselves. But should I give them a buck to do something they ought to anyway?
What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Idaho Native: You’re looking at it as the glass half empty instead of the glass half full. You’ve already been rewarded as a non-smoker. By having much less risk of heart disease, emphasima (sp), and any other number of health problems related to smoking. Your reward is you’re going to live longer!! I think thats a pretty good reward myself.
Vote:
0 0 I think this is a bad idea. Why should our government be involved in shaping the behavior of our children? That should be done at home. I think it’s just another bureaucratic boondoggle that will be difficult and expensive to administer. It is also a cop-out for parents who are unable or unwilling to take care of their own children. And if you are going to give special favors to the kids who enroll in this program, where do you stop? Shouldn’t kids who do volunteer work or other worthy things also be rewarded somehow? It seems like a bad precedent to me. I’m for smaller government, not them sticking their nose everywhere it doesn’t belong.
Vote:
0 0 so by emphasizing good behavior, rewarding good behavior, acknowledging good behavior is not good? Did I read that essay correctly?
What is wrong with providing scholarship money to kids who stay off drugs, even if they plan to stay away from them anyway, and isn’t it ok to give them an even stronger reason to stay off drugs?
What a great way to spend tax dollars, give it to a deserving kid who chose to say off drugs, go to college and become a productive citizen.
Would you rather spend tax dollars getting kids in rehab? Paying for their medical expenses?
I ask if those kids at risk who see their peers staying true to resisting drugs might be another incentive for them to think about what they are doing and resist themselves?
I am just pondering the issue…
Vote:
0 0 In S.E. Idaho this is going to be a $2000 BYU-Idaho free ride. Let’s face it, most LDS kids don’t smoke or drink and never will. These will be the kids applying for this hand out. The kids who are going to experiment with drugs and alcohol aren’t going to be discouraged by a $2000 carrot. The reality is, most of the party kids won’t even end up going to college. If the state has that kind of money to blow why don’t our legislators send it directly to our universities to allow lower tuition for everyone? Shouldn’t parents worry about keeping our children off drugs and our elected officials worry about controlling skyrocketing in-state tuition? Is this type of proposed legislation the result of electing folks that haven’t actually graduated from a university? I going to check on that and get back to you…
Vote:
0 0 While I agree that kids using drugs is bad, these kids are not simply “choosing” to stay off drugs. They are being blackmailed into doing so by holding a scholarship over their heads and making them agree to mandatory drug testing. It’s like they will be on probation or something. In my opinion, some of the things people eat and drink are as bad for them as some drugs. How about rewarding them for abstaining from junk food instead? It makes just as much sense.
It’s quite a stretch to say that without this new program my tax dollars will be going to rehab and medical expenses instead. I don’t think that government should be in the business of choosing which behaviors they want to reward people for at the expense of the taxpayers. Just for an example, the next thing you know they’ll say that Scouting is good behavior so they will give all of them scholarships too. I don’t want the government twisting my arm into letting them give mandatory drug testing to my children. And I don’t want them deciding which behaviors they want to reward with my tax dollars. If this program has any merit someone in the private sector who believe in it should start a fund for it.
Vote:
0 0 I can’t decide where I stand on this issue. Rewarding folks for ending bad behaviors (and I have plenty myself) seems like a slap to those who didn’t start any in the first place…but then, rewarding those who don’t start any in the first place seems like a poor use of the money because it isn’t really a large enough amount to be much of an incentive if a kid is on the brink…
And those that aren’t on the brink, it’s free money…and those that are making the choice should be doing it because it’s the right thing to do, not because they’ll get a reward…
I just can’t decide. I’d like to put that money in another area that is proven effective, but I haven’t done the research to find out if there IS such an animal.
Vote:
0 0 On the one hand yeah more education money is great, trying yet something else to keep kids off drugs and focused on higher education is great, and maybe this precedent is not so bad. Maybe we should use a little money to promote a few universally-agreed behaviors like keeping off drugs, keeping out of obesity, etc. If parents are not doing their job and our society is degrading, shouldn’t government do what it can to help?
On the other hand government has a habit of hurting an issue more than they help, there’s the nannystate argument, and there’s the question of how many people will really change their destructive behaviors.
Maybe this is a good idea if only as a test of the concept?
I think this idea is thought provoking. I don’t know if I support it or not either. There are some good points to both sides.
Vote:
0 0 Please correct me if I am misguided, wrong or misinformed. When someone in government–anyone–states they are willing to “PAY” to change human behavior, is that not some socialist kind of thing to do?
I thought we lived in a state that was supposedly attempting to keep government out of the private lives of people. I guess maybe somehow I must have “thought wrong.” Dang it, I hate it when that happens!
My take on this issue is very simple–government has no business using economic incentives to legislate morality in whatever way shape and form it may take. STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES!
Thank you, I am finished ranting and venting now.
Cheers, Monte.
Vote:
0 0 Excellent post Monte. Great point on how government intervention in this area leads us to supporting moral decisions. How would people like it if we gave scholarships to women that chose to have abortions so they could get their lives back on track? How about we give money to parolees that don’t reoffend or get sent back to prison? Obviously, those would not be tolerated or supported.
The other problem is that when we take government money it brings more strings with it that allow them access into our lives….inevitably, it leads to more state encroachment.
Vote:
0 0 I agree pretty much with the authors comments. Especially the part about who it will reward. Kids who are going to do drugs are not really going to be swayed by a “pie in the sky” reward. To a teenager a scholarship at the end of high school is eons away. I think the best way to discourage or end drug use is to educate - with the TRUTH, not sensationalized info. I’m talking about scientific studies. When someone realizes that the price they are going to pay is greater than the present time enjoyment, they will usually make a change. It’s pain vs pleasure. If a person continues to make poor decisions about their health or well being, then they should be offered the right kind of therapy to help end their confusion and self destructive impulses. $2,000 bucks will buy a lot of good therapy. Give it to the ones who need it.
Vote:
0 0 Great, so now we will reward folks with free therapy when they decide to go out and do the “Wrong Thing”? Shouldn’t the point be that we will definitely not go throwing money around to bad eggs that are after self-medicating drugs to please themselves? Why on earth would we want to make it more acceptable and easy for people to break the law….and break the bank at the same time?
Vote:
0 0 Yeah, I think the more I ponder, the more I don’t want to go there with the incentives to do the right things. It just feels wrong for all the reasons I can come up with.
Yet it feels as if there is a crisis with all our bad behaviors, so if not this, what? Does society have an obligation to try to forestall/end bad behaviors when the consequences are that society ends up paying (in various ways) severe penalties otherwise?
Vote:
0 0 That is a great question, if not financial incentives to change bad behavior choices, what then? I understand and completely agree that parents should be the ones instilling better values, but they are not.
Yesterday a boy shotgunned his sister’s face for not giving over her potato chips, and it was not the first time the boy pointed the weapon at family members. Today a story about a father who left his baby at an auto accident. I wish we could rely on parents but we can’t. You can I can with our kids, but then our kids go out in the world and sit next to the kids of these other idiots.
So if we can’t do financial incentives and we can’t rely on the parents, what do we do? These problems seem to get worse in America each passing year, what are some possible solutions?
Vote:
0 0 Maybe the incentive should go to the parents…?
As Joe continually points out, the parents are to blame for a kids behavior, at least bad behavior, and when a kids does good, who gets the credit? It seems we never hear alot about cheering on the good parenting skills of a successful teenager/kid, only the blasting of bad parenting for bad choices teenagers make.
All the focus seems to be on bad kids making bad decisions at the fault of the bad parent, in my view.
Govt. is way too big I agree, way to involved in our lives, way to influential with throwing our tax dollars around.
Perhaps we should check into who we are voting into office, maybe the bigger problem stems from the legislators/law makers who tell us all that they can make things better, better health care, better roads, better economy, just give us more money and we can make things better. We listen with stars in our eyes and believe in a allusion presented by folks we vote into office. Hillary and Obama want universal health care, how does she intend on paying for it? With higher tax dollars, how else?
Doesn’t some of that tax money go to detention centers for teenagers who are needing health care? And isn’t that medical care paid for by tax dollars? Aren’t the county run detention centers paid for by the taxes?
New incentives/scholarships are offered by those politicians making the claim to make life better and we scream at what they are doing with the tax money, it is mis-spent, and yet we want all this better govt. care… what a crazy oxymoron world…
We want free stuff without the govt. involved?
Vote:
0 0 Ultimately, all of the above comes down to “taking responsibility.”
Yeah, that’s Old Fashioned. I know. Nobody really wants to “take responsibility” anymore. It’s gone totally out of style and isn’t a functional part of society any more. It’s SO much easier to point fingers and lay blame someplace else. Who do you know these days who actually “takes responsibility” for ANYTHING? People are wont to say, “it’s THEIR responsibility–NOT mine.” Everyone is wiling to point fingers and assign blame to someone else. But who actually “takes responsibility” anymore? No body I know, that’s for danged sure–they all have their “blame culprits” lined up like ducks in a row–ready to point a finger or a popgun at.
It’s pretty danged interesting how now the supposedly ULTRA conservative legislators here in Idaho are basically mouthing socialism in order to attempt to get somebody to “take responsibility.”
Hum….where did this idea of paying people to be responsible come from? Who dreamed this up?
Frankly, the whole thing is extremely perplexing to me. It’s all about responsibility and no one seems to be willing to “take” it.
Cheers, Monte.
Vote:
0 0 I’ve changed my mind back and forth for the last few days on this subject. I can’t vote on your poll. Can you put a third spot for ‘undecided’ ?
Every time I think I’ve convinced myself to support it, I think of another reason why it shouldn’t be allowed.
What an interesting subject, really! I’m usually very opinionated, but on this one I can’t commit either way.
When I get into this situation at work, the bottom line is “what is it we’re trying to accomplish?” and then once that is truly known, “is this course of action the best way to do that?”
Vote:
0 0 I know I’m the same way. This is one week I’m letting my wife vote from our IP address (usually I snag it cuz I’m there right after creating it). Keep in mind it’s up until next Sunday morning so you can think about your choice.
I think it’s a great topic because both sides offer compelling reasons.
Vote:
0 0 So this bill has died, and I think good riddance. Lawmakers agreed with the general sentiment here, that the idea is in the right place but it’s unlikely to be effective in guiding teens to change behaviors, and probably would just reward the same teens who were not going to try alcohol anyway.
Another problem was how little money was offered. $2k?!?! That is not even a full semester’s student fees, let alone books or whatnot. Maybe if the legislature made it a full four-year scholarship of fees and books, then we might have incentive, but we know no Idaho legislature will do that.
Interesting the lawmaker who proposed this has done the same bill for six years, then said “we need a new and innovative program” to discourage binge drinking. Why keep bringing up the same idea for six years then?
http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=8001521
What are some new ideas then that Idaho could try to discourage teens from drinking and drug use?
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religiondebates.blogspot.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Loading ...
Vote:
I would prefer a system like this as opposed to one that rewards people for breaking a habit. Case in point: one of our larger employers is considering offering an monetary incentive to their employees if they will quit smoking. Okay, this is fine, but what about the employees that don’t smoke? This is almost like rewarding the smokers for smoking.
However, if someone offered me money for cleaning my house, maybe I would have a cleaner house instead of thinking about hiring a cleaning service. (LOL)