Urine or You're Out

[DontBeStupid]

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

But this is presumption of guilt, not innocence. You're basically assuming if someone does an illegal drug that they will do it at work and harm the work place. There are no facts backing this up. People who enjoy a beer or a glass of wine are not at work right now getting hammered.

 

[Jackson]

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.

They aren't accepting welfare. That's what the topic is.

 

[Si modo]

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

But this is presumption of guilt, not innocence. You're basically assuming if someone does an illegal drug that they will do it at work and harm the work place. There are no facts backing this up. People who enjoy a beer or a glass of wine are not at work right now getting hammered.

I'm not assuming anything. I know that those who are under the influence and doing a job that requires attention to safety are a danger to others who work there and quite possibly to the general public.

There is no pee test to definitively determine alcohol use. Alcohol has elimination kinetics of zero order which means that time is the only variable involved in its elimination. The pee test is for metabolites of drugs other than alcohol. The elimination kinetics of other substances is not zero order and those drugs take several days to be eliminated from the body. They pee at work or after work and they have those metabolites present, then they are under the influence during work.

And, as far as any assumption of guilt is concerned, business can assume anything they want about a worker.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Arrrrrgh!!! No disrespect friend, but I get soooooo tired of the 'we have to give them whatever they want or they'll turn to crime' argument. Isn't it obvious to you how such a concept holds honest, decent, hard working people hostage? That is forces them to submit to a scheme that would make any Mafia crime boss proud: "Pay up to be sure nothing bad happens to your business or family or whatever. . . . ."

Has our society really become as wimpy as that?

For me it is simple. You want my money without working for it? Then you better be drug free and doing community service or something useful and not just zoning out, having more and more kids, watching soaps and getting fatter all day. If you don't like my rules, get a job.

 

[Jackson]

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

But this is presumption of guilt, not innocence. You're basically assuming if someone does an illegal drug that they will do it at work and harm the work place. There are no facts backing this up. People who enjoy a beer or a glass of wine are not at work right now getting hammered.

I am assuming the drug testing takes place sometime during the workday. Not in the evening hours. As long as what the worker partakes in does not alter their state 12 hours later, they are fine, I would guess.

 

[WillowTree]

I am all for testing those tha receive govt funds, that would include all forms of govt aid. hey, we might as well treat everyone equally. We should include tax breaks, govt employees to include the president down to the janitor. The corporations and their tax loopholes. The legislatures. Anyone running for office that gets fed matching funds, those that receive grants, fellowships, loans,etc.
Why just single out welfare receipients that get food stamps of AFDC?
But alas the Michigan supreme court ruled that testing welfare users was a violation of their right to privacy, and a bad use of govt. powers intruding on private citizens.
thank goodness we have a Bill Of rights attached to the Constitution. How else do you defend urself against azzhole tyrants that are mean spirited.

By the way, taxpayers that are conservative and advocate this idea are wanting more govt. intrusion, more govt. power over our daily lives and more govt. expendatur. I quess ur only a conservative when it suits ur need to belittle a liberal.
Oh! Welfare has requirements, you are required to get a job, traing or loose ur welfare. there is no such thing as open ended entitlements for the poor. It should make you happy to know that people will do without because you ever loving Christians have a hard heart problem. Wasn't it conservatives that killed the liberal Jesus Christs!? Why yes it was.

you look bumfuzzled!

 

[Antiderivative]

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.

They aren't accepting welfare. That's what the topic is.

The financial bankers never accepted a handout? Where do you live? In a cave?

 

[Foxfyre]

I am all for testing those tha receive govt funds, that would include all forms of govt aid. hey, we might as well treat everyone equally. We should include tax breaks, govt employees to include the president down to the janitor. The corporations and their tax loopholes. The legislatures. Anyone running for office that gets fed matching funds, those that receive grants, fellowships, loans,etc.
Why just single out welfare receipients that get food stamps of AFDC?
But alas the Michigan supreme court ruled that testing welfare users was a violation of their right to privacy, and a bad use of govt. powers intruding on private citizens.
thank goodness we have a Bill Of rights attached to the Constitution. How else do you defend urself against azzhole tyrants that are mean spirited.

By the way, taxpayers that are conservative and advocate this idea are wanting more govt. intrusion, more govt. power over our daily lives and more govt. expendatur. I quess ur only a conservative when it suits ur need to belittle a liberal.
Oh! Welfare has requirements, you are required to get a job, traing or loose ur welfare. there is no such thing as open ended entitlements for the poor. It should make you happy to know that people will do without because you ever loving Christians have a hard heart problem. Wasn't it conservatives that killed the liberal Jesus Christs!? Why yes it was.

you look bumfuzzled!

Well, in defense of Soggy, how did you feel when you read that post????

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

They aren't accepting welfare. That's what the topic is.

The financial bankers never accepted a handout? Where do you live? In a cave?

Perhaps you would find it within your ability to focus on the thread topic which focuses on people receiving public assistance? The topic is not loans, subsides to protect the economy, tax breaks, or concessions to lure businesses to locate or relocate.

Thank you in advance very much for your cooperation.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

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?

Okay, let's suppose just for argument's sake that the program does cost more than maintaining the existing welfare payments to drug users. I thought the Federal budget situation was tight enough that we need to minimize costs everywhere we can. Or should we raise taxes to support this program?

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?

It's not comparing apples to apples. You can always get a job with an employer that doesn't test for drugs. Government beneficiaries have no alternative source of financial assistance.

 

[syrenn]

Adapted from an e-mail I received today:

TO PEE or NOT TO PEE

I think this should be a "law of the land". Guess it's probably not 'politically correct' and would be insensitive and probably fall into some definitions of racial discrimination. But let's give it a whirl anyway:

TO PEE OR NOT TO PEE.

I have a job.

I work and they pay me for the work I do.

I pay my taxes & the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test
(with which I have no problem). I don't have a problem that a urine test is also required when I apply for work comp or disability.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question:

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I don't really have a problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT--doing drugs while I work.

Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!

P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!

Not a random drug test....a MANDATORY drug test every month.....and if you dont pass the test no check for 6 months....at which time you can apply again. If you fail 3 times ...you are out for life.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Okay, let's suppose just for argument's sake that the program does cost more than maintaining the existing welfare payments to drug users. I thought the Federal budget situation was tight enough that we need to minimize costs everywhere we can. Or should we raise taxes to support this program?

Different topic. The focus here is on requiring a measure of responsibility and integrity from those on the public dole. In the conservative world, that is not only for the benefit of those furnishing the funds which would be the taxpayers, but also the recipients of the funds by not encouraging irresponsibility.

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?

It's not comparing apples to apples. You can always get a job with an employer that doesn't test for drugs. Government beneficiaries have no alternative source of financial assistance.

Sure they do. They can beg on the street. They can mooch off friends and/or family. They can get a job and support themselves. They can live off the land. But if they are going to get money from people who work to earn it without doing anything to merit that money, I see no downside to anybody by requiring them to agree to a few reasonable rules.

 

[Antiderivative]

Perhaps you would find it within your ability to focus on the thread topic which focuses on people receiving public assistance? The topic is not loans, subsides to protect the economy, tax breaks, or concessions to lure businesses to locate or relocate.

Thank you in advance very much for your cooperation.

Crony capitalism is ripe within our culture. Only an idiot thinks that the poor are the only ones who benefit from public assistance.

Please try being consistent with your principles. Thank you in advance very much for your cooperation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps you would find it within your ability to focus on the thread topic which focuses on people receiving public assistance? The topic is not loans, subsides to protect the economy, tax breaks, or concessions to lure businesses to locate or relocate.

Thank you in advance very much for your cooperation.

Crony capitalism is ripe within our culture. Only an idiot thinks that the poor are the only ones who benefit from public assistance.

Please try being consistent with your principles. Thank you in advance very much for your cooperation.

But only a troll keeps trying to derail the thread into something that it isn't and avoid discussing the topic intended. Please don't be a troll.

 

[syrenn]

If we all have to do drug tests to get a check from our jobs...of which keep them in a check.... a drug test every month for a welfare check is NO different.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

The focus here is on requiring a measure of responsibility and integrity from those on the public dole. In the conservative world, that is not only for the benefit of those furnishing the funds which would be the taxpayers, but also the recipients of the funds by not encouraging irresponsibility.

This concept deserves some closer examination. Conservative principles should require a measure of responsibility and integrity not only from those on the public dole, but also from those who hold ANY job that affects public safety, public health, or public well-being. It follows that everyone in such a job, whether employed by the government or not, must also be screened for drugs.

That would include not only all healthcare workers, but everyone who manages someone else's money (from bank directors to cashiers), all architects, everyone in the media, everyone in a job related to the law, anyone in childcare, anyone working at zoos...

Are you comfortable with all of this?

 

[Foxfyre]

Adapted from an e-mail I received today:

TO PEE or NOT TO PEE

I think this should be a "law of the land". Guess it's probably not 'politically correct' and would be insensitive and probably fall into some definitions of racial discrimination. But let's give it a whirl anyway:

TO PEE OR NOT TO PEE.

I have a job.

I work and they pay me for the work I do.

I pay my taxes & the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test
(with which I have no problem). I don't have a problem that a urine test is also required when I apply for work comp or disability.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question:

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I don't really have a problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT--doing drugs while I work.

Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!

P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!

Not a random drug test....a MANDATORY drug test every month.....and if you dont pass the test no check for 6 months....at which time you can apply again. If you fail 3 times ...you are out for life.

Well I can empathise with the sentiment but that's tougher than even I--the I hate any form of federal charity of any kind lady--would propose. If the motive is to train them into taking responsibility for themselves, teach them a work ethic, hopefully help them develop some marketable skills, I would prefer they be rewarded with a government check when they have accomplished the requirements to 'earn' that check. That could require attending and passing some classes, doing community service, or seriously applying for work AND being drug free. At least it would be a start.

No pass - no check that week. Try harder this week, etc.

 

[Antiderivative]

But only a troll keeps trying to derail the thread into something that it isn't and avoid discussing the topic intended. Please don't be a troll.

I am not trolling for pointing out the most obvious fact that the poor are not the only ones who receive public assistance.

If you want to drug test people who receive public assistance, then you are going to have to widen your views. However, you just want to attack the poor, not people who receive public assistance.

You are being dishonest and dishonesty is a sign of a troll.

 

[Si modo]

But only a troll keeps trying to derail the thread into something that it isn't and avoid discussing the topic intended. Please don't be a troll.

I am not trolling for pointing out the most obvious fact that the poor are not the only ones who receive public assistance.

If you want to drug test people who receive public assistance, then you are going to have to widen your views. However, you just want to attack the poor, not people who receive public assistance.

You are being dishonest and dishonesty is a sign of a troll.

She doesn't have to do anything.

You would be well-advised to stay on topic. Although you may be talking about fruit, the specific topic is apples. And, it's her fucking topic. Focus.

 

[Foxfyre]

But only a troll keeps trying to derail the thread into something that it isn't and avoid discussing the topic intended. Please don't be a troll.

I am not trolling for pointing out the most obvious fact that the poor are not the only ones who receive public assistance.

If you want to drug test people who receive public assistance, then you are going to have to widen your views. However, you just want to attack the poor, not people who receive public assistance.

You are being dishonest and dishonesty is a sign of a troll.

Fine. You just keep right on muttering in your own little world. But I hope those who actually wish to discuss the specific topic of this thread will ignore you until you also decide to discuss the topic.