Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread...so apolgies in advance if this has already been discussed, but:
It appears that what people object to is the idea that their tax-dollars may be used to buy illicit drugs.
Don't forget that there are plenty of people who recieve tax dollars who are not welfare recipients. Their salaries are paid for by "we the people".
Just think about it. If you really don't want any tax monies ending up "in the wrong hands" then we would have to institute massive large-scale drug testing. Yep. Everyone from the President on down to the lowly clerk at the DMV would have to be tested on a regular basis. It would get pretty expensive.
I say absolutely drug test for public assistance. I cannot understand how some people can say that a person who is given money on a monthly basis for doing nothing other than breathing and/or procreating shouldn't be held to some standard. I think its absurd.
Instead of mandatory drug testing, I would support a fixed time limit on how long one can be a recipient of government benefits. If we don't stop the generational dependency on government aid, it will spiral out of control and get to the point where it will be nearly impossible to pay for.
No one is saying that people who are on public assistance should not adhere to a standard, we are simply saying that the standard they should have to adhere to MUST BE the same standard that YOU have to adhere to, and that standard includes a persumption of innocence, which is what the overwhelming majority of the poor actually are.
Why stop at welfare recipients? Let's make drug testing compulsory for anyone who recieves ANY kind of taxpayer-funded financial support, for any period of time.
You should have reasonable suspicion to drug test some one, A person causing an accident is suspicious enough for it to hold up in court. You can ask a person anything you want and they can answer you any way they want. but it is up to you to prove if they are lying. Which is why they don't give lie detector exams to welfare applicants, that would make it all very easy, but illegal
No the courts have upheld radom drug testing. Lie detector test are not given because of the cost really and the fact that it is not admissable i court. It is often a term of employemnt to take one when asked in a employer investigation. You don;t have to then but you can be terminated for refusing o terms of employemnt.Mnay times its require for any hgh securtiy to even gain such employment.Since the sate has a interest :i see no problem with even rdom drug teatig as far as the sourt clearing it lokig at recent ruling. The court have only said that it can not be discriminatory in who is tested.How days most skilled blue collar jobs require pre-employent drug testing and random testing thru out employment.You owuld be surprised how mnay are truend down because of poostive test and never even know it now days.
No the courts have upheld radom drug testing. Lie detector test are not given because of the cost really and the fact that it is not admissable i court. It is often a term of employemnt to take one when asked in a employer investigation. You don;t have to then but you can be terminated for refusing o terms of employemnt.Mnay times its require for any hgh securtiy to even gain such employment.Since the sate has a interest :i see no problem with even rdom drug teatig as far as the sourt clearing it lokig at recent ruling. The court have only said that it can not be discriminatory in who is tested.How days most skilled blue collar jobs require pre-employent drug testing and random testing thru out employment.You owuld be surprised how mnay are truend down because of poostive test and never even know it now days.
If only 3% of the population in public housing is using, than random drug testing is not going to be a very effective way of policing that population, but will have the effect of creating multiple law suits about discrimination, racism and civil rights issues, negating any savings you might realize removing these folks from public housing. Although I do think removing them from public housing is going to cost you more in the long run. Alcohol and tobacco are far more damaging to health and welfare than all the other drugs combined. Are you going to make the projects smoke free and alcohol free too? Or is it just the illegality that bugs you and not the harm being done?
What is the goal of such a testing program? Do you want to punish lifestyles different from yours that you object to? Do you want to eliminate violence in the projects? because drug use does not cause violence. You might say drug sales cause violence, but it's really the prohibition that causes violence by creating a high profit, low margin business, with no regulatory controls. Do you want to tell poor people what they can spend their assistance on? (won't work, they already sell their food stamps for cash). Do you want to be their big daddy, who knows best how they should live (like you do?). What is the goal?
Why do you think you can do that to the poor but not to others. Because people of means can fight back?
I say absolutely drug test for public assistance. I cannot understand how some people can say that a person who is given money on a monthly basis for doing nothing other than breathing and/or procreating shouldn't be held to some standard. I think its absurd.
Instead of mandatory drug testing, how long one can I would support a fixed time limit onbe a recipient of government benefits. If we don't stop the generational dependency on government aid, it will spiral out of control and get to the point where it will be nearly impossible to pay for.
I don't know where you've been but there IS a fixed time limit on government benefits. It's five yearsover a person's lifetime. This was started during the Clinton administration when they did Welfare Reform. The only exception to this is when a person is so disabled they will never be able to work and then they don't get Welfare but SSDI...disability and Medicade. And that usually takes at least two years to qualify for. People aren't getting money just because they are "breathing and/or procreating". Also there's a thing called Workfare and people are required to work at least part time AND go to school at least part time. You really need to read up on the Welfare laws. It's hard to even get food stamps anymore and the process is NOT fun to go through. Even two dollars over their limits and you're SOL.
Should public assistance be cut off or disallowed to any person who fails a mandatory drug test? Would such a plan create more problems than it solves?
Would it simply drive a stake into a monster, but miss the heart?
The war on drugs does nothing to reduce drug use, it simply inflates the cost of drug marketing, with public welfare paying the increment. But then, the billionaire drug lords are spending their money, on bling and real estate and maybe even equities, putting it back into the economy, and the collapse of the illegal drug trade could itself trigger a recession.
If we took all drug users off welfare, they would need to get their money elsewhere, and unless our economy magically creates 20 or 30 million new jobs and hires the chronically irresponsible to do them, they will then have to use criminal means to get the money to live on, not even counting the money to buy inflated underworld drugs. So the response is for everyone to arm himself against these desperate people, and kill them by the millions when they attack, finally pouring boiling oil on them when they cross the moat. How does that advance the principle of civilization?
This is the second time in a week I've seen this topic come up and I absolutely love the idea of mandatory *random* drug testing for anyone that gets state & federal funding. If I had it my way that would include welfare recipients, govt workers, and so on.
I'd even give people a 3 strikes rule:
Test Positive #1: Pay & benefits suspended until mandatory rehab is completed. Perhaps give them vouchers for a local clinic to attend if they can't afford it.
Test Positive #2: People relapse and it happens. Repeat step #1.
Test Positive #3: Too bad, so sad, but now you're cut off from benefits and fired if you were a govt worker.
Also, this would apply to federal and state pensioners as well. My stance is absolutely NO tax dollars should be paying for illicit drug use. Period. The double edge sword is that I'm a huge proponent of personal responsibility and don't believe in socialist programs like welfare and social security. If you force people to be accountable I feel we'll see sweeping social changes where those programs won't be necessary to begin with, or at least greatly reduced. And since I feel people should be personally responsible for their own actions and well-being, I think drug use should be legalized. Yes, it's counter to the original argument, but it's a roundabout way of thinking. Get rid of socialist tendencies by the govt, let people do what they hell they want (so long as it doesn't harm others then no big deal), and if people fall on their face and fail at life then that's on them. The govt our forefathers handed down to us was intended to be much more hands-off than it has become today.
Should public assistance be cut off or disallowed to any person who fails a mandatory drug test?
Yes, absolutely. It's called fraud.
If someone comes to me and says they have a problem and can't feed their family, okay, I'll pony up and buy some groceries.
But before I do, they need to stop buying cigarettes and beer, stop playing the lotto, and dump the cell-phone and cable/satellite.
If they can't then I'll be happy to give them recipes for grilled cell phone and scratch off lottery tickets marinated in Colt 45 and topped with a creamy tobacco sauce.
If they have money to buy drugs, they have money to buy food.
I'd go for a hair sample every 6 months.
1st violation: 6 month suspension of all benefits
2nd violation: 3 year suspension of all benefits
3rd violation: life-time ban (just like Pete Rose)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Would such a plan create more problems than it solves?
No, because it may actually motivate those turds to learn how to prioritize, right?
Fish or cut bait? Well, now its Food or Dope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
The war on drugs does nothing to reduce drug use
That's because there is no "war on drugs" and never has been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
If we took all drug users off welfare, they would need to get their money elsewhere
Um, do I need to explain to you that we live on a planet?
The US isn't the only country on Planet Earth. I'm sure than can get some farmland in Mozambique or Paraguay and grow their own food.
Apparently, Homo Neanderthalis was much more intelligent than Homo Sapiens Hand-out.
When the food sources disappeared, Neanderthals didn't sit around watching cable sucking on an Olde English 800 40-ounce missile waiting for someone to give them a handout.
If someone comes to me and says they have a problem and can't feed their family, okay, I'll pony up and buy some groceries.
But before I do, they need to stop buying cigarettes and beer, stop playing the lotto, and dump the cell-phone and cable/satellite.
If they can't then I'll be happy to give them recipes for grilled cell phone and scratch off lottery tickets marinated in Colt 45 and topped with a creamy tobacco sauce.
If they have money to buy drugs, they have money to buy food.
I'd go for a hair sample every 6 months.
1st violation: 6 month suspension of all benefits
2nd violation: 3 year suspension of all benefits
3rd violation: life-time ban (just like Pete Rose)
No, because it may actually motivate those turds to learn how to prioritize, right?
Fish or cut bait? Well, now its Food or Dope?
That's because there is no "war on drugs" and never has been.
Um, do I need to explain to you that we live on a planet?
The US isn't the only country on Planet Earth. I'm sure than can get some farmland in Mozambique or Paraguay and grow their own food.
Apparently, Homo Neanderthalis was much more intelligent than Homo Sapiens Hand-out.
When the food sources disappeared, Neanderthals didn't sit around watching cable sucking on an Olde English 800 40-ounce missile waiting for someone to give them a handout.
They moved on to find a new source of food.
Although we can't be certain, it appears that what the Neanderthals did was get pushed out of the best territory in favor of Homo Sapiens, after which they rapidly became extinct. So I don't think they are a very good example of superiority over anyone living today.
Unless were now deporting our poor, I don't think anyone on US Public Assistance is going to be farming in Paraguay.
If there is no War on Drugs that would be news to the DEA, which has called it exactly that (until this year), and which has spent about half a trillion dollars, at least, fighting this war, or giving grants to local police forces to fight it.
So, you want to be so involved with the day to day activities of the poor, the majority of which are law abiding folks just like you, that you want to be able to control not only what illegal substances thay want to ingest but also the legal substances too? What about candy for the kids or birthday gifts? They don't really need them, would you ban those too? Where would your facist state end, at the bedroom, or do you want to control how many children they have too?
Do I need to explain to you that we live in a country governed by a Constitution and Bill of Rights? That they extend to all citizens, not just the more well off? That a person, regardless of income, has a right to be presumed innocent, and to be left alone by their government?
Or are you a recent immigrant from some totalitarian state where concerpts like yours are the status quo?
Should public assistance be cut off or disallowed to any person who fails a mandatory drug test? Would such a plan create more problems than it solves?
Would it simply drive a stake into a monster, but miss the heart?
The war on drugs does nothing to reduce drug use, it simply inflates the cost of drug marketing, with public welfare paying the increment. But then, the billionaire drug lords are spending their money, on bling and real estate and maybe even equities, putting it back into the economy, and the collapse of the illegal drug trade could itself trigger a recession.
If we took all drug users off welfare, they would need to get their money elsewhere, and unless our economy magically creates 20 or 30 million new jobs and hires the chronically irresponsible to do them, they will then have to use criminal means to get the money to live on, not even counting the money to buy inflated underworld drugs. So the response is for everyone to arm himself against these desperate people, and kill them by the millions when they attack, finally pouring boiling oil on them when they cross the moat. How does that advance the principle of civilization?
No, they should not test people on welfare for drugs. They should just get rid of welfare instead. It causes more problems than it solves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one is saying that...
