Urine or You're Out

[Foxfyre]

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?

I am comfortable focusing on the specific topic of this thread. If you would like to discuss all the other subjects you seem to want to drag into it, please start your own thread.

Thank you very much.

 

[syrenn]

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.

Rather simple.... anyone receiving a government check in ANY form, needs to pass a drug test..... right up to the president.


For welfare recipients....every month as a condition of collecting a check. If the money is free and you have a choice to apply or not. .....they do not have to apply for a FREE check if they dont want to submit to a drug screen. `

 

[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.

Rather simple.... anyone receiving a government check in ANY form, needs to pass a drug test..... right up to the president.

In the hopes of shutting the idiot up, those who receive grants for research or other such programs (employing the disabled, for example) are required to ensure that those who work on that project follow the OPM's guidelines for workplace safety, which require a drug-free environment, among other things.

 

[Antiderivative]

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.

I am discussing the topic. One, I am against it primarily because the War on Drugs is one of America's biggest failures. Two, you are discriminating against a class of people. Three, if you are for it, then go after all people who receive public assistance which means drug testing the bankers, the corporatists, the bureaucrats, the MIC, and foreign nations. Be consistent with your views.

You just don't like my views on this topic and that is ok. However, you cannot handle views that differ from your own and that is not ok.

 

[Si modo]

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.

I am discussing the topic. One, I am against it primarily because the War on Drugs is one of America's biggest failures. Two, if you are for it, then go after all people who receive public assistance which means drug testing the bankers, the corporatists, the bureaucrats, the MIC, and foreign nations. Be consistent with your views.

You just don't like my views on this topic and that is ok. However, you cannot handle views that differ from your own and that is not ok.

This is the last time I feed the ignorant off-topic trolls.

Those who receive welfare do nothing in return for it other than apply for it. There is only one-sided consideration in that contract for them. You are talking about something different.

Focus on the topic.

 

[Antiderivative]

n the hopes of shutting the idiot up, those who receive grants for research or other such programs (employing the disabled, for example) are required to ensure that those who work on that project follow the OPM's guidelines for workplace safety, which require a drug-free environment, among other things.

A urine test is not required to receive federal grants. Please stop telling lies.

 

[Si modo]

n the hopes of shutting the idiot up, those who receive grants for research or other such programs (employing the disabled, for example) are required to ensure that those who work on that project follow the OPM's guidelines for workplace safety, which require a drug-free environment, among other things.

A urine test is not required to receive federal grants. Please stop telling lies.

You speak from ignorance. I have applied for and received countless federal grants and I must agree to follow OPM guidelines. OPM guidelines require a drug-free work environment. If I don't agree to that, my application is immediately DQed.








Idiot.

 

[Antiderivative]

Rather simple.... anyone receiving a government check in ANY form, needs to pass a drug test..... right up to the president.


For welfare recipients....every month as a condition of collecting a check. If the money is free and you have a choice to apply or not. .....they do not have to apply for a FREE check if they dont want to submit to a drug screen.

How about getting real and ending the War on Drugs. You are not going to solve the drug problem by taking public assistance away from poor people if they can't pass a drug test.

This thread is about applying a band-aid to someone who has cancer.

 

[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?

I am comfortable focusing on the specific topic of this thread. If you would like to discuss all the other subjects you seem to want to drag into it, please start your own thread.

Thank you very much.

You brought up the point. It's therefore your responsibility either to defend or concede it.

 

[syrenn]

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.

I am discussing the topic. One, I am against it primarily because the War on Drugs is one of America's biggest failures. Two, you are discriminating against a class of people. Three, if you are for it, then go after all people who receive public assistance which means drug testing the bankers, the corporatists, the bureaucrats, the MIC, and foreign nations. Be consistent with your views.

You just don't like my views on this topic and that is ok. However, you cannot handle views that differ from your own and that is not ok.

The bottom line is that MY money should NOT be used to support a drug or alcohol or for that matter a smoking habit.

welfare recipients want to do that shit....they can damn well get a fucking job and pay for it themselves Then it would be no ones business what they do with the money they earn.

Besides...think of all of the jobs it would create testing all of these people on a monthly basis.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The bottom line is that MY money should NOT be used to support a drug or alcohol or for that matter a smoking habit.

welfare recipients want to do that shit....they can damn well get a fucking job and pay for it themselves Then it would be no ones business what they do with the money they earn.

What about junk food? Could they buy junk food? Or condoms? If you're Catholic I'm sure you'd hate that. Also, what about foreign oil? Or any foreign good? I mean really, at what point would you draw the line and allow them to actually decide for themselves?

Also, how does that fit into "limited government" ?

Look, I agree that I don't think someone on government assistance should be using it to buy junk food or cigarettes, but, logically, I know that even if they do, it's still benefiting the economy, and that's what we want! We don't want a ton of people in this country with ZERO purchasing power. That's not good regardless of whether they are drug free or not.

 

[Antiderivative]

The bottom line is that MY money should NOT be used to support a drug or alcohol or for that matter a smoking habit.

I agree with you. However, I disagree with the idea that only poor people who receive public assistance are the culprits.

Besides...think of all of the jobs it would create testing all of these people on a monthly basis.

This is wrong. More government diverts productive resources towards non-productive means. The whole idea that the government should create jobs is ridiculous, especially when it comes to the War on Drugs.

For example, we have the highest incarceration rate of non-violent criminals and the highest incarceration rate, overall. Certainly, this creates jobs, but it eats up productive resources. We have better things to spend our money on than imprisoning people and drug testing them. However, statists like to champion the opposite.

 

[Si modo]

The bottom line is that MY money should NOT be used to support a drug or alcohol or for that matter a smoking habit.

welfare recipients want to do that shit....they can damn well get a fucking job and pay for it themselves Then it would be no ones business what they do with the money they earn.

What about junk food? Could they buy junk food? Or condoms? If you're Catholic I'm sure you'd hate that. Also, what about foreign oil? Or any foreign good? I mean really, at what point would you draw the line and allow them to actually decide for themselves?

Also, how does that fit into "limited government" ?

Look, I agree that I don't think someone on government assistance should be using it to buy junk food or cigarettes, but, logically, I know that even if they do, it's still benefiting the economy, and that's what we want! We don't want a ton of people in this country with ZERO purchasing power. That's not good regardless of whether they are drug free or not.

The food stamp system (a type of credit card) does not allow most of the items you mentioned to be purchased anyway.

 

[Antiderivative]

n the hopes of shutting the idiot up, those who receive grants for research or other such programs (employing the disabled, for example) are required to ensure that those who work on that project follow the OPM's guidelines for workplace safety, which require a drug-free environment, among other things.

A urine test is not required to receive federal grants. Please stop telling lies.

You speak from ignorance. I have applied for and received countless federal grants and I must agree to follow OPM guidelines. OPM guidelines require a drug-free work environment. If I don't agree to that, my application is immediately DQed.

How many urine test did you have to do? Complying with OPM guidelines are not the same thing as mandatory urine tests. I have also received federal aid and never had to take a urine test.


Fucking lying asshole.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I am discussing the topic. One, I am against it primarily because the War on Drugs is one of America's biggest failures. Two, you are discriminating against a class of people. Three, if you are for it, then go after all people who receive public assistance which means drug testing the bankers, the corporatists, the bureaucrats, the MIC, and foreign nations. Be consistent with your views.

You just don't like my views on this topic and that is ok. However, you cannot handle views that differ from your own and that is not ok.

The bottom line is that MY money should NOT be used to support a drug or alcohol or for that matter a smoking habit.

welfare recipients want to do that shit....they can damn well get a fucking job and pay for it themselves Then it would be no ones business what they do with the money they earn.

Besides...think of all of the jobs it would create testing all of these people on a monthly basis.

LOL. Well that's one way to look at it.

I think you're agreeing on my ace in the hole to get around an invasion of privacy thing though. As receiving welfare is a purely voluntary act and nobody is required to apply for or receive public assistance of any kind, some reasonable rules geared to prevent people taking advantage of the system do seem to be both humane and necessary for the good of all.

Kids shouldn't be growing up seeing mommy getting a government check every week or month for doing nothing but drinking beer, smoking pot, and watching soaps all day. Such an experience could teach a child to expect the world to owe him a living and he isn't expected or required to do anything on his own behalf.

But what if Mommy was expected to get up at 7 every morning, was expected to be sure the kids had breakfast and their faces were washed and they were properly dressed for school and then had to report for so many hours of doing community service--picking up trash in the park, sweeping public walks, washing windows in tovernment buildings or whatever. Maybe the lesson for the children is that people do work for what they have.

And what if mommy got tired of actually working for a public pittance and decided that if she had to work anyway, she might as well make better money, so she goes out and gets a real job?

I can see a lot of positives in Americans adopting such a policy wherever it could feasibly be applied.

Those in my family who expect me to support them also expect to live by my rules. I see no reason why strangers who expect me to support them should be entitled to anything different.

 

[Valerie]

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 agree with this.


To say that because in the private workplace I am subject to such testing as a condition for employment, therefore public funds should be subject to such government intrusion is misguided and intrusive to all of our personal liberties.

The public is properly subject to circumstantial qualifications for certain types of assistance. Allowing the government to stand in judgement of personal circumstances is the proverbial slipper slope IMO... The public is subject to drug laws, already...

 

[Si modo]

You speak from ignorance. I have applied for and received countless federal grants and I must agree to follow OPM guidelines. OPM guidelines require a drug-free work environment. If I don't agree to that, my application is immediately DQed.

How many urine test did you have to do? Complying with OPM guidelines are not the same thing as mandatory urine tests. I have also received federal aid and never had to take a urine test.


Fucking lying asshole.

Click on the link, moron.

But, as your intellectual laziness doesn't permit that for you, I'll quote part of the content contained in that link.

1. development of an agency policy;
2. employee education;
3. supervisory training;
4. access to agency-sponsored Employee Assistance Programs; and
5. urine drug testing for illegal drugs of job applicants and Federal employees in designated testing .

It's bolded for those who are morons.









Idiot.

 

[Antiderivative]

You speak from ignorance. I have applied for and received countless federal grants and I must agree to follow OPM guidelines. OPM guidelines require a drug-free work environment. If I don't agree to that, my application is immediately DQed.

How many urine test did you have to do? Complying with OPM guidelines are not the same thing as mandatory urine tests. I have also received federal aid and never had to take a urine test.


Fucking lying asshole.

Click on the link, moron.

But, as your intellectual laziness doesn't permit that for you, I'll quote part of the content contained in that link.

1. development of an agency policy;
2. employee education;
3. supervisory training;
4. access to agency-sponsored Employee Assistance Programs; and
5. urine drug testing for illegal drugs of job applicants and Federal employees in designated testing .

It's bolded for those who are morons.









Idiot.

I never had to take a urine test when filling out my FAFSA forms or any of my TA's/ RA's assistance ships.



Lying Asshole.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I simply cannot agree with those who think there should be no rules or requirements or expectations of those receiving government checks. I think that would do little more than encourage irresponsibility and would discourage initiative. And it is not fair to those who have their wages confiscated and transferred to others.

 

[Si modo]

How many urine test did you have to do? Complying with OPM guidelines are not the same thing as mandatory urine tests. I have also received federal aid and never had to take a urine test.


Fucking lying asshole.

Click on the link, moron.

But, as your intellectual laziness doesn't permit that for you, I'll quote part of the content contained in that link.

1. development of an agency policy;
2. employee education;
3. supervisory training;
4. access to agency-sponsored Employee Assistance Programs; and
5. urine drug testing for illegal drugs of job applicants and Federal employees in designated testing .

It's bolded for those who are morons.









Idiot.

I never had to take a urine test when filling out my FAFSA forms or any of my TA's/ RA's assistance ships.



Lying Asshole.

Students are not employees.

And, if you were a grad student, it was your research ad visor who applied for the grant, not you.









Idiot.