Urine or You're Out

[Moonglow]

Since you are the only one on the opposed side so far who hasn't thrown in a lot of stupid straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings - and I profoundly thank you for that - why would it be an unlawful invasion of privacy? Nobody forces anybody to take welfare, any more than I am forced to work on a job that requires random drug testing. But if I want to work at that job I agree to the drug testing. Why shouldn't those who take welfare, without doing ANYTHING to merit it, also agree to drug testing. If they aren't willing to do that, they can look somewhere else for assistance. Or figure out how to earn what they need to get by.

I can think of a couple of reasons:
1) the program is likely to cost more than it saves in welfare payments.
2) nobody has specified how to safeguard people against false positives.

Thanks! Yup, these two for starters.

As for the privacy though, I think it's the exposure aspect. If a private company tests me and I fail, I get fired, but that's it. If the government tests me and I fail, well, there is now state evidence I broke the law. I not only lose my assistance, but I also face fines or jail time. Not only do I think this is too harsh, but I think it will actually serve as motivation for people to not get assistance, and instead turn to crime, which we definitely don't want. (Cause lets be honest, only a small fraction will choose giving up the drugs).

I guess, in the end, my opinion is a pot head still buys food from the local grocer and gas from the local gas station. His money flows into the economy like anyone else, so why single him out?

Unconditional love saves more peole than harsh tyranny ever will.

 

[Antiderivative]

Some of the biggest peddlers in the drug industry are the financial banks and CIA.

Test them also. They also live off of government handouts.

 

[Moonglow]

welfare is not a sustainable income in any manor for me, but if we drug test one welfare receipient, then all forms of welfare should be treated in the same manner.

By extension, are people advocating we should test every student getting a Pell Grant or a Direct Loan? After all, they are receiving government money.

yes, college kids use drugs, I did, and I got financial aid. As far as fairness is concerned.

I don't advocate drug tests for anyone. I don't like having to visit fecal feliacs, they're a turn off.

 

[Moonglow]

Some of the biggest peddlers in the drug industry are the financial banks and CIA.

Test them also. They also live off of government handouts.

true, the CIA operates drug cultivation with their allies.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The people who are on welfare should be using their checks for the good of their family and not for drugs.

I would argue that they should be using it for the good of the economy. That's what it's for. A person with no income can't consume goods and will most likely turn to crime to support himself. Welfare helps prevent all that.

 

[Jackson]

I have to disagree with you. The people who are on welfare should be using their checks for the good of their family and not for drugs. If they have a drug addiction, they'll have to come clean before they get assistance from the government. It has nothing to do with those who work for a living.

I'd rather hire people to do the drug testing and lower our unemployment rate. It just may be some of those people on welfare now!

We'll just have to disagree.

I never said that people who are welfare should not be using their checks for the good of their family rather than for drugs.

Do you want to lie or have an actual conversation?

No, I didn't intend to lie. Just want to make sure the checks go for the family and not a habit which certainly could happen.

 

[Lars]

Why not breath tests to prohibit alcohol use? People who can afford alcohol shouldn't be on public assistance. And how often do we drug test these people so as to prohibit them from ever taking drugs? Every week? Every month? Every year? Wouldn't it be pointless at this point? Why not drug test people on medicare, medicaid, social security, and public school students? Why not drug test all people who receive federal contracts? Isn't that the logical conclusion of the premise that we should test ANYONE who receives federal money. How are we going to pay for these drug tests? Won't they just defeat the purpose of saving money, or is that not the point?

 

[Si modo]

I certainly understand why people would want to see this, but it just doesn't sit well with me. It seems like an unlawful invasion of privacy. Not to mention the obvious costs involved with testing so many people and the fact that if they are even around marijuana it could show positive on their test.

Yeah, I don't think I could support this.

It's urine. We expel it from our bodies as waste. There is little intrusive about analyzing waste.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It's urine. We expel it from our bodies as waste. There is little intrusive about analyzing waste.

I never said it was physically intrusive. If we subjected all welfare recipients to a credit check, that would be intrusive as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

I certainly understand why people would want to see this, but it just doesn't sit well with me. It seems like an unlawful invasion of privacy. Not to mention the obvious costs involved with testing so many people and the fact that if they are even around marijuana it could show positive on their test.

Yeah, I don't think I could support this.

Since you are the only one on the opposed side so far who hasn't thrown in a lot of stupid straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings - and I profoundly thank you for that - why would it be an unlawful invasion of privacy? Nobody forces anybody to take welfare, any more than I am forced to work on a job that requires random drug testing. But if I want to work at that job I agree to the drug testing. Why shouldn't those who take welfare, without doing ANYTHING to merit it, also agree to drug testing. If they aren't willing to do that, they can look somewhere else for assistance. Or figure out how to earn what they need to get by.

I can think of a couple of reasons:
1) the program is likely to cost more than it saves in welfare payments.
2) nobody has specified how to safeguard people against false positives.

What evidence do you have that the program would cost more than it saves? And even if it does, if it teaches people to responsible so they are more likely to get off welfare or public assistance, why would that be a bad thing?

Why should government beneficiaries of the public dole be at any more risk than I would be when I submit to a random drug test at work?

 

[Jackson]

The people who are on welfare should be using their checks for the good of their family and not for drugs.

I would argue that they should be using it for the good of the economy. That's what it's for. A person with no income can't consume goods and will most likely turn to crime to support himself. Welfare helps prevent all that.

That really doesn't say much about our culture. If a person doesn't get money from the government, they go rob someone. No one ever thinks of getting a job no matter how menial?

 

[DontBeStupid]

it teaches people to responsible so they are more likely to get off welfare or public assistance, why would that be a bad thing?

Yeah, and faced with the thought of going to jail, we see no one committing a crime, ever.

Threat of punishment is not this perfect tool to get people to act the way you want them to. Now, if we rewarded them for being clean and going to school and applying for jobs, THAT would be a huge motivator.

 

[Si modo]

It's urine. We expel it from our bodies as waste. There is little intrusive about analyzing waste.

I never said it was physically intrusive. If we subjected all welfare recipients to a credit check, that would be intrusive as well.

You're right. You didn't say physically.

Filling out the application forms for aid might also be intrusive.

Personally, I think the cost of doing this might be prohibitive - not sure, though. It may DQ enough recipients to make it not cost prohibitive. I think it's a good idea otherwise. When you want to receive money from another, then the other can put any requirements on that. If this happens and they don't want to pee in a cup, then that is their choice and it has ramifications.

 

[Jackson]

it teaches people to responsible so they are more likely to get off welfare or public assistance, why would that be a bad thing?

Yeah, and faced with the thought of going to jail, we see no one committing a crime, ever.

Threat of punishment is not this perfect tool to get people to act the way you want them to. Now, if we rewarded them for being clean and going to school and applying for jobs, THAT would be a huge motivator.

We help people by giving them free education, lunches, and many times clothes and shelter. When does personal pride and ambition come into play? Reward comes in at the end of working to achieve an end.

 

[snjmom]

I disagree based on the same reason I disagree with drunk driving roadblocks or any other presumption of guilt.

It's unconstitutional.

It amazes me that private companies have been allowed such leeway due to the drug hysteria. Why only drugs? Why not interview spouses and children on a random basis to make sure no domestic or child abuse is going on or audit employees accounts and tax records to make sure no financial shenanigans are occurring or checking the number of purchases at casinos, bars and liquor stores to make sure no alcoholism is being mixed?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Testing all persons randomly is not reasonable.

 

[DontBeStupid]

That really doesn't say much about our culture. If a person doesn't get money from the government, they go rob someone. No one ever thinks of getting a job no matter how menial?

Some would get jobs and some wouldn't. I would argue in this economy, with businesses refusing to hire, a lot would try to get jobs and fail and feel forced into crime. But regardless, at least some would go to crime no matter what, and that's not good.

 

[Antiderivative]

No, I didn't intend to lie. Just want to make sure the checks go for the family and not a habit which certainly could happen.

As I would to. However, you distorted my argument to make it look like I was for welfare money going towards drugs use rather than towards necessities, such as food and shelter.

However, we disagree over mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. Do you see the difference?

 

[Si modo]

I disagree based on the same reason I disagree with drunk driving roadblocks or any other presumption of guilt.

It's unconstitutional.

It amazes me that private companies have been allowed such leeway due to the drug hysteria. Why only drugs? Why not interview spouses and children on a random basis to make sure no domestic or child abuse is going on or audit employees accounts and tax records to make sure no financial shenanigans are occurring or checking the number of purchases at casinos, bars and liquor stores to make sure no alcoholism is being mixed?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Testing all persons randomly is not reasonable.

No one is forcing you to work at a job where drug testing is required.

And, those of us who are non-users certainly have a right to work in a safe environment.

 

[Jackson]

That really doesn't say much about our culture. If a person doesn't get money from the government, they go rob someone. No one ever thinks of getting a job no matter how menial?

Some would get jobs and some wouldn't. I would argue in this economy, with businesses refusing to hire, a lot would try to get jobs and fail and feel forced into crime. But regardless, at least some would go to crime no matter what, and that's not good.

I agree with you some would not be able to get a job even sweeping floors. But it is up to us to let these would be criminals it would be much harder to get a job with a police record. What a way to screw up a young life!

 

[Antiderivative]

The people who are on welfare should be using their checks for the good of their family and not for drugs.

I would argue that they should be using it for the good of the economy. That's what it's for. A person with no income can't consume goods and will most likely turn to crime to support himself. Welfare helps prevent all that.

That really doesn't say much about our culture. If a person doesn't get money from the government, they go rob someone. No one ever thinks of getting a job no matter how menial?

Some of America's biggest robberies were partaken by people of wealth (re: the financial coup d' etat of 2008).

However, some people love to demonize the poor. I don't see you or the OP advocating to drug test the financial bankers, who love their cocaine.