States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Peejay]

Marijuana legislation began primarily as a regional phenomenon based in southern and western states. For the most part, the legislation was racially motivated. Despite what people may think, Mexican immigration is not a new issue. Today it may be based on nationalism and fairness to the working class, though some may argue otherwise, but in the 1920s and 30s anti-Mexican sentiment was based on blatant racism.

It was generally known that marijuana use in these states was limited to Mexican immigrants. During this time, with the Mexican population growing in Southern and Western states, legislators saw their use of marijuana as a way to stem this tide. There are two reasons that state legislatures made marijuana illegal. The first is that during this time the Temperance Movement was in full swing. This was at the height of alcohol prohibition in the United States. Legislators wanted to ensure with the influx of Mexican immigrants, there was no rise in use of marijuana among the white middle- and upper-classes. Second, the onset of the Great Depression, created an enormous of resentment among the white populations competing for jobs with Mexican immigrants. Marijuana prohibition was the perfect to tool to prevent the loss of jobs among the white populations, because it only affected Mexicans workers.

The second leg of marijuana prohibition involved yellow journalism, mainly under the leadership of William Randolph Hearst, the owner of one of the largest newspaper chains in the United States. In many stories, writers often tied marijuana to violent crimes, including rapes and murders, earning its reputation as the killer weed. Often these reports were unsubstantiated. There was never any scientific proof cited that marijuana caused the violence. Many of the culprits tried to pin their behavior on their marijuana use, claiming it made them crazy. This was good enough for many reporters despite the lack of scientific evidence. This could allow states to rationalize the deportation, imprisonment, and immigration quotas of Mexican workers

Marijuana Laws Based On Discriminatory Past



Some more info on outlawing Marijuana. The primary motivation was anti Mexican sentiment. Hearst helped that along, because he didn't like Mexicans.

 

[Peejay]

I think all lawyers, judges and politicians should have to undergo drug testing. Why limit it to the poor or working class.

But isn't cocaine legal if you snort it through hundred dollar bills?

 

[oreo]

Not having been a pot head Dud, I can't deal with your simplicity of drug usage from an addict 's standpoint. All I can say is pot is classified as a mind altering drug , consequently, it is against the law. From a non users viewpoint, I fail to see the value of altering your brain simply as a recreation.

Man, you've really swallowed some propoganda.

First, I would ask, do you drink coffee? Tea? Anything with caffeine? You understand that caffeine is also a drug? Acceptable, for social and cultural reasons, "mind altering" as you say, and it is consumed in coffee house and soda fountains all over for recreational use. Have you ever read about the history of US drug policy? Do you know that caffeine was on the list to be criminalized along with pot and other substances? A powerful coffee lobby greased the right palms to keep that drug flowing.

Second, you obviously don't know why marijuana was outlawed and demonized. Marijuana was outlawed solely for the purpose of returning Mexican immigrants to Mexico. The Mexicans smoked marijuana a lot like white men had learned to smoke tobacco, another smoke with a "mind altering" chemical inside. During a particularly rough stretch for the southwestern US, politicians in those states were looking for a reason to deport migrant workers, as jobs had grown scarce and their constituents wanted the migrants gone. They seized on marijuana. At the time, the idea of outlawing a weed that grew practically everywhere, was laughable to nearly everyone in Washington. No one in the land of the free could envision the enforcemnet of an illegal weed. It was a joke to most. So, they did what politicians do: they taxed it. The first US marijuana law was a federal tax act. It required a tax stamp for marijuana. But they worded the law so that you couldn't get the stamp unless you already had the marijuana and if you already had the marijuana but no stamp, you were in violation. They deported thousands of Mexicans.

Afterwards the law wasn't enforced, it was found unconstitutional in the 60's, marijuana was legal until the early 70's and then illegal again.

In short, you really don't know very much about the subject except to say it is illegal. Kind of like it is illegal to have sex in any position except missionary in many states. Just doesn't make sense to most reasonable folks.

Hey--I am an employer. I don't want my employees showing up for work either drunk or under the influence of marijuana--they're working with electricity for crying out loud. Not only could they seriously injure or kill themselves--they could do a lot of damage to the public safety.

If they're required to do drug tests, then the person sitting at home on their arse's collecting a government check should be required to do the same. The point being that until marijuana is taken off of the list of no do drugs--you're screwed in your attempt to defend this practice.

If I knew that an employee was under the influence of anything--while I am paying for it they're history.

 

[Peejay]

Not having been a pot head Dud, I can't deal with your simplicity of drug usage from an addict 's standpoint. All I can say is pot is classified as a mind altering drug , consequently, it is against the law. From a non users viewpoint, I fail to see the value of altering your brain simply as a recreation.

Man, you've really swallowed some propoganda.

First, I would ask, do you drink coffee? Tea? Anything with caffeine? You understand that caffeine is also a drug? Acceptable, for social and cultural reasons, "mind altering" as you say, and it is consumed in coffee house and soda fountains all over for recreational use. Have you ever read about the history of US drug policy? Do you know that caffeine was on the list to be criminalized along with pot and other substances? A powerful coffee lobby greased the right palms to keep that drug flowing.

Second, you obviously don't know why marijuana was outlawed and demonized. Marijuana was outlawed solely for the purpose of returning Mexican immigrants to Mexico. The Mexicans smoked marijuana a lot like white men had learned to smoke tobacco, another smoke with a "mind altering" chemical inside. During a particularly rough stretch for the southwestern US, politicians in those states were looking for a reason to deport migrant workers, as jobs had grown scarce and their constituents wanted the migrants gone. They seized on marijuana. At the time, the idea of outlawing a weed that grew practically everywhere, was laughable to nearly everyone in Washington. No one in the land of the free could envision the enforcemnet of an illegal weed. It was a joke to most. So, they did what politicians do: they taxed it. The first US marijuana law was a federal tax act. It required a tax stamp for marijuana. But they worded the law so that you couldn't get the stamp unless you already had the marijuana and if you already had the marijuana but no stamp, you were in violation. They deported thousands of Mexicans.

Afterwards the law wasn't enforced, it was found unconstitutional in the 60's, marijuana was legal until the early 70's and then illegal again.

In short, you really don't know very much about the subject except to say it is illegal. Kind of like it is illegal to have sex in any position except missionary in many states. Just doesn't make sense to most reasonable folks.

Hey--I am an employer. I don't want my employees showing up for work either drunk or under the influence of marijuana--they're working with electricity for crying out loud. Not only could they seriously injure or kill themselves--they could do a lot of damage to the public safety.

If they're required to do drug tests, then the person sitting at home on their arse's collecting a government check should be required to do the same. The point being that until marijuana is taken off of the list of no do drugs--you're screwed in your attempt to defend this practice.

If I knew that an employee was under the influence of anything--while I am paying for it they're history.

I don't think anyone should be under the influence at work. And that goes for coffee too. You're not under the influence of coffee at work are you? I think it's high time we launched an investigation, formed a coalition, you know, to find out how many jittery coffee fingers have caused accidents on the job. I think it could be the next step in job site safety.

There are also places where you can grow and smoke pot. Keeping an ounce or less for yourself is OK by Alaska law. Quite a few other states are moving towards decriminalization. The movement to repeal this archane law is only getting larger. Until then, I think I'm going to step up my efforts to take away your coffee. For safety and all.

 

[RodISHI]

I think all lawyers, judges and politicians should have to undergo drug testing. Why limit it to the poor or working class.

But isn't cocaine legal if you snort it through hundred dollar bills?

May be.

:Flipping back through the mental pictures:









Can't recall seeing that exact image as I walked through the partially opened door to say hi. Just a line of white dust on a big walnut desk with the Dem party leader pulling his head back up from the desk.

 

[Peejay]

I think all lawyers, judges and politicians should have to undergo drug testing. Why limit it to the poor or working class.

But isn't cocaine legal if you snort it through hundred dollar bills?

May be.

:Flipping back through the mental pictures:









Can't recall seeing that exact image as I walked through the partially opened door to say hi. Just a line of white dust on a big walnut desk with the Dem party leader pulling his head back up from the desk.

What was he doing under the desk? Hiding Rushs' oxycontin?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not having been a pot head Dud, I can't deal with your simplicity of drug usage from an addict 's standpoint. All I can say is pot is classified as a mind altering drug , consequently, it is against the law. From a non users viewpoint, I fail to see the value of altering your brain simply as a recreation.

Man, you've really swallowed some propoganda.

First, I would ask, do you drink coffee? Tea? Anything with caffeine? You understand that caffeine is also a drug? Acceptable, for social and cultural reasons, "mind altering" as you say, and it is consumed in coffee house and soda fountains all over for recreational use. Have you ever read about the history of US drug policy? Do you know that caffeine was on the list to be criminalized along with pot and other substances? A powerful coffee lobby greased the right palms to keep that drug flowing.

Second, you obviously don't know why marijuana was outlawed and demonized. Marijuana was outlawed solely for the purpose of returning Mexican immigrants to Mexico. The Mexicans smoked marijuana a lot like white men had learned to smoke tobacco, another smoke with a "mind altering" chemical inside. During a particularly rough stretch for the southwestern US, politicians in those states were looking for a reason to deport migrant workers, as jobs had grown scarce and their constituents wanted the migrants gone. They seized on marijuana. At the time, the idea of outlawing a weed that grew practically everywhere, was laughable to nearly everyone in Washington. No one in the land of the free could envision the enforcemnet of an illegal weed. It was a joke to most. So, they did what politicians do: they taxed it. The first US marijuana law was a federal tax act. It required a tax stamp for marijuana. But they worded the law so that you couldn't get the stamp unless you already had the marijuana and if you already had the marijuana but no stamp, you were in violation. They deported thousands of Mexicans.

Afterwards the law wasn't enforced, it was found unconstitutional in the 60's, marijuana was legal until the early 70's and then illegal again.

In short, you really don't know very much about the subject except to say it is illegal. Kind of like it is illegal to have sex in any position except missionary in many states. Just doesn't make sense to most reasonable folks.

Hey--I am an employer. I don't want my employees showing up for work either drunk or under the influence of marijuana--they're working with electricity for crying out loud. Not only could they seriously injure or kill themselves--they could do a lot of damage to the public safety.

If they're required to do drug tests, then the person sitting at home on their arse's collecting a government check should be required to do the same. The point being that until marijuana is taken off of the list of no do drugs--you're screwed in your attempt to defend this practice.

If I knew that an employee was under the influence of anything--while I am paying for it they're history.

Okay, I'm not following your logic. Your employees shouldn't be on drugs because they're working with electricity and it's dangerous. But then you say if THEY have to be drug-tested, people on public assistance should be, too. Why? THEY aren't working with electricity. I'm not following that particular leap there. Because your employees are inconvenienced for the sake of safety, damn it, other people ought to be, too? Is that it? Or is it just that you feel the need to take your frustrations out on someone else, and you think people on welfare are a good target?

 

[Peejay]

Man, you've really swallowed some propoganda.

First, I would ask, do you drink coffee? Tea? Anything with caffeine? You understand that caffeine is also a drug? Acceptable, for social and cultural reasons, "mind altering" as you say, and it is consumed in coffee house and soda fountains all over for recreational use. Have you ever read about the history of US drug policy? Do you know that caffeine was on the list to be criminalized along with pot and other substances? A powerful coffee lobby greased the right palms to keep that drug flowing.

Second, you obviously don't know why marijuana was outlawed and demonized. Marijuana was outlawed solely for the purpose of returning Mexican immigrants to Mexico. The Mexicans smoked marijuana a lot like white men had learned to smoke tobacco, another smoke with a "mind altering" chemical inside. During a particularly rough stretch for the southwestern US, politicians in those states were looking for a reason to deport migrant workers, as jobs had grown scarce and their constituents wanted the migrants gone. They seized on marijuana. At the time, the idea of outlawing a weed that grew practically everywhere, was laughable to nearly everyone in Washington. No one in the land of the free could envision the enforcemnet of an illegal weed. It was a joke to most. So, they did what politicians do: they taxed it. The first US marijuana law was a federal tax act. It required a tax stamp for marijuana. But they worded the law so that you couldn't get the stamp unless you already had the marijuana and if you already had the marijuana but no stamp, you were in violation. They deported thousands of Mexicans.

Afterwards the law wasn't enforced, it was found unconstitutional in the 60's, marijuana was legal until the early 70's and then illegal again.

In short, you really don't know very much about the subject except to say it is illegal. Kind of like it is illegal to have sex in any position except missionary in many states. Just doesn't make sense to most reasonable folks.

Hey--I am an employer. I don't want my employees showing up for work either drunk or under the influence of marijuana--they're working with electricity for crying out loud. Not only could they seriously injure or kill themselves--they could do a lot of damage to the public safety.

If they're required to do drug tests, then the person sitting at home on their arse's collecting a government check should be required to do the same. The point being that until marijuana is taken off of the list of no do drugs--you're screwed in your attempt to defend this practice.

If I knew that an employee was under the influence of anything--while I am paying for it they're history.

Okay, I'm not following your logic. Your employees shouldn't be on drugs because they're working with electricity and it's dangerous. But then you say if THEY have to be drug-tested, people on public assistance should be, too. Why? THEY aren't working with electricity. I'm not following that particular leap there. Because your employees are inconvenienced for the sake of safety, damn it, other people ought to be, too? Is that it? Or is it just that you feel the need to take your frustrations out on someone else, and you think people on welfare are a good target?

Easy tartgets, those welfare folks.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know. It's tiresome. And people wonder why they're so fucked up. They're treated like garbage wherever they go, they're glared at in the stores, people bitch about them on the bus, their children are treated like crap at school. And the left can't figure out why the hell they can't climb out of the morass of poverty and dysfunction.

They're fucking people. They aren't your dogs, though many would like to consider them as such. They aren't your slaves, you don't fucking own them. You own your business, you get to decide whether or not to require drug tests because people knowing that can decide whether or not to apply.

People who are hungry have no choices, and a lifetime of povery, shame and dysfunction makes it all but impossible for them to make wise choices. So just keep piling it on their heads. As I've said before, eventually you'll just kill them off and you won't have to worry about them anymore.

 

[Peejay]

I know. It's tiresome. And people wonder why they're so fucked up. They're treated like garbage wherever they go, they're glared at in the stores, people bitch about them on the bus, their children are treated like crap at school. And the left can't figure out why the hell they can't climb out of the morass of poverty and dysfunction.

They're fucking people. They aren't your dogs, though many would like to consider them as such. They aren't your slaves, you don't fucking own them. You own your business, you get to decide whether or not to require drug tests because people knowing that can decide whether or not to apply.

People who are hungry have no choices, and a lifetime of povery, shame and dysfunction makes it all but impossible for them to make wise choices. So just keep piling it on their heads. As I've said before, eventually you'll just kill them off and you won't have to worry about them anymore.

Yep. It's a sad. The character of a nation is often judged by the condition of the poor, the sick, the elderly. More often than not, and I'm sure you can attest allie, you're born into it. I don't think the folks who argue for the destruction of these social program have an understanding of the spectacle of mass, abject poverty that spawned these measure to begin with, or the spectacle that would emerge if we tore them down now. "One can not create wealth, without, at the same time, creating poverty." That's how Ghandi said it.

 

[Shogun]

YEA! tax payers want their TAXES spent on food rather than drugs BECAUSE WELFARE RECIPIENTS ARE EASY TARGETS!





what WONT you stupid motherfuckers say when rationalizing he abuse of this tax based system?

 

[Terry]

Lets not stop at welfare recipients, why not the POTUS...like daily...LMAO

 

[Shogun]

Lets not stop at welfare recipients, why not the POTUS...like daily...LMAO

I have no problem wit elected officials being required to take drug tests. none at all.

 

[AllieBaba]

They aren't your employees. Sorry, your power doesn't extend that far.

You're just mad because you hate attending the job readiness programs you have to attend in order to get bennies, Shoog. Now stop using the employment department's computers to surf the web and find a job, loser.

 

[Shogun]

They aren't your employees. Sorry, your power doesn't extend that far.

You're just mad because you hate attending the job readiness programs you have to attend in order to get bennies, Shoog. Now stop using the employment department's computers to surf the web and find a job, loser.

right.. because Civil Servant implies autonomy from the will of the public that hires elected officials via polls...





hey, bitch... I get to do all of this because I am self sufficient. If your mealticket acted in kind you might find yourself unemployed with nothing to keep making excuses for. Hell, do you think anyone misses how funny it is that your usual right wing ass leaped to defend the very system that puts food in your mouth?


No, what I hate is irresponsible motherfuckers and the enablers they rely on. In this case, you and your status quo employment

 

[aka520]

I think the rub most people have concerning welfare recipients is how the money is spent. I think now most welfare benefits are distributed via a credit card. This eliminated a lot of the embarrassment of standing in the grocery line and having others watch you pay with food stamps. However, there are restrictions on what purchases can be made. For instance, you cannot purchase tobacco products or alcohol. Regardless, people do get around this by selling their card. The same would hold true if drugs were purchased. However, the benefit is intended to feed adults and children. Adults can manage but it's the children that suffer. Things would be fine if we could buy a bag of grocery's and deliver to their residence but it doesn't work that way. As example, I belong to a charitable organization that once a year takes a group of children on a shopping spree. We buy them shoes, clothing, coats and the like. Over the years we learned the hard way not to provide the receipts, because the parents would return the clothing for refunds and spend the money. Maybe the intent of people supporting drug testing is to provide a layer of protection the money is not being spent on drugs.
gb

 

[Shogun]

naw... Allie Baba thinks that welfare recipients should have nothing but the best. Thursday night is Caviar and Krystal night in the poor house, you know!

 

[Peejay]

I think the rub most people have concerning welfare recipients is how the money is spent. I think now most welfare benefits are distributed via a credit card. This eliminated a lot of the embarrassment of standing in the grocery line and having others watch you pay with food stamps. However, there are restrictions on what purchases can be made. For instance, you cannot purchase tobacco products or alcohol. Regardless, people do get around this by selling their card. The same would hold true if drugs were purchased. However, the benefit is intended to feed adults and children. Adults can manage but it's the children that suffer. Things would be fine if we could buy a bag of grocery's and deliver to their residence but it doesn't work that way. As example, I belong to a charitable organization that once a year takes a group of children on a shopping spree. We buy them shoes, clothing, coats and the like. Over the years we learned the hard way not to provide the receipts, because the parents would return the clothing for refunds and spend the money. Maybe the intent of people supporting drug testing is to provide a layer of protection the money is not being spent on drugs.
gb

I agree with most of this. While the card may save some embarassment (Lord help us if we didn't embarass all the poor people out there), it does help with the issue of selling the old stamps. Of course, you can still purchase with the card and resell the goods, but the deal with selling the stamps outright is nixed with the cards.

I don't think anyone here has advocated buying drugs with public assistance money. I would prefer it didn't happen. I welcome the bust that were posted here, mostly dealing with unsrcupulous business men who buy the stamps or take credits from the cards and then pay a fraction in cash value. Just a couple bust posted here resulted in millions of dollars of this occurance. Those are good results. Millions in a single pop. With these drug test bills, were are talking about 2 or 3 test before anyone is denied and then it is only a couple years off the roles. Not to mention that several of these bills don't even take the people off the roles, just require that they attend an evaluation. And still, you have to fail a drug test and then you are allowed 60 days to take another drug test and pass. So were talking about spending a lot of dough on a program that will probably cost more money than the abuse does. If it is possible to show a gain, it will be minimal and the fact is, even drug users feed their kids.

I agree with the premise but the implementation will not be effective cost wise or in removing any significant number of users.

 

[aka520]

I think the rub most people have concerning welfare recipients is how the money is spent. I think now most welfare benefits are distributed via a credit card. This eliminated a lot of the embarrassment of standing in the grocery line and having others watch you pay with food stamps. However, there are restrictions on what purchases can be made. For instance, you cannot purchase tobacco products or alcohol. Regardless, people do get around this by selling their card. The same would hold true if drugs were purchased. However, the benefit is intended to feed adults and children. Adults can manage but it's the children that suffer. Things would be fine if we could buy a bag of grocery's and deliver to their residence but it doesn't work that way. As example, I belong to a charitable organization that once a year takes a group of children on a shopping spree. We buy them shoes, clothing, coats and the like. Over the years we learned the hard way not to provide the receipts, because the parents would return the clothing for refunds and spend the money. Maybe the intent of people supporting drug testing is to provide a layer of protection the money is not being spent on drugs.
gb

I agree with most of this. While the card may save some embarassment (Lord help us if we didn't embarass all the poor people out there), it does help with the issue of selling the old stamps. Of course, you can still purchase with the card and resell the goods, but the deal with selling the stamps outright is nixed with the cards.

I don't think anyone here has advocated buying drugs with public assistance money. I would prefer it didn't happen. I welcome the bust that were posted here, mostly dealing with unsrcupulous business men who buy the stamps or take credits from the cards and then pay a fraction in cash value. Just a couple bust posted here resulted in millions of dollars of this occurance. Those are good results. Millions in a single pop. With these drug test bills, were are talking about 2 or 3 test before anyone is denied and then it is only a couple years off the roles. Not to mention that several of these bills don't even take the people off the roles, just require that they attend an evaluation. And still, you have to fail a drug test and then you are allowed 60 days to take another drug test and pass. So were talking about spending a lot of dough on a program that will probably cost more money than the abuse does. If it is possible to show a gain, it will be minimal and the fact is, even drug users feed their kids.

I agree with the premise but the implementation will not be effective cost wise or in removing any significant number of users.

When is the last time you saw a government managed program cost effective?
gb

 

[Peejay]

I think the rub most people have concerning welfare recipients is how the money is spent. I think now most welfare benefits are distributed via a credit card. This eliminated a lot of the embarrassment of standing in the grocery line and having others watch you pay with food stamps. However, there are restrictions on what purchases can be made. For instance, you cannot purchase tobacco products or alcohol. Regardless, people do get around this by selling their card. The same would hold true if drugs were purchased. However, the benefit is intended to feed adults and children. Adults can manage but it's the children that suffer. Things would be fine if we could buy a bag of grocery's and deliver to their residence but it doesn't work that way. As example, I belong to a charitable organization that once a year takes a group of children on a shopping spree. We buy them shoes, clothing, coats and the like. Over the years we learned the hard way not to provide the receipts, because the parents would return the clothing for refunds and spend the money. Maybe the intent of people supporting drug testing is to provide a layer of protection the money is not being spent on drugs.
gb

I agree with most of this. While the card may save some embarassment (Lord help us if we didn't embarass all the poor people out there), it does help with the issue of selling the old stamps. Of course, you can still purchase with the card and resell the goods, but the deal with selling the stamps outright is nixed with the cards.

I don't think anyone here has advocated buying drugs with public assistance money. I would prefer it didn't happen. I welcome the bust that were posted here, mostly dealing with unsrcupulous business men who buy the stamps or take credits from the cards and then pay a fraction in cash value. Just a couple bust posted here resulted in millions of dollars of this occurance. Those are good results. Millions in a single pop. With these drug test bills, were are talking about 2 or 3 test before anyone is denied and then it is only a couple years off the roles. Not to mention that several of these bills don't even take the people off the roles, just require that they attend an evaluation. And still, you have to fail a drug test and then you are allowed 60 days to take another drug test and pass. So were talking about spending a lot of dough on a program that will probably cost more money than the abuse does. If it is possible to show a gain, it will be minimal and the fact is, even drug users feed their kids.

I agree with the premise but the implementation will not be effective cost wise or in removing any significant number of users.

When is the last time you saw a government managed program cost effective?
gb

And your point would be?