who does and doesn't get tested ?

[dblack]

Bit of a strawman argument, since said parents are currently (usually) paying into the system.

It's not a strawman. It's a valid analogy. In pretty much any school district I know of, anyone sending their children to public schools is getting more than they are paying for. That's the nature of making education a publicly financed service. It's the nature of pretty much any publicly financed service. It is a form of wealth redistribution and the same arguments apply.

And my concern is that it's a likely vehicle for expansion of government power if we allow this kind of intervention as a precedent.

The issue of testing welfare/food stamp recipients is more along the lines of making sure what we are paying for is being used properly.

Right. The same argument can be made for public education. Well-meaning citizens, interested in making sure that their tax dollars are being used wisely, might insist the surveillance cameras be placed in the bedrooms of all students - to ensure that they're doing their home work regularly and that they're not cheating. The point is, there all kinds of ways we might like to use government to control other people. But it's in all our interests to set strict limits on how far that goes.

 

[martybegan]

Bit of a strawman argument, since said parents are currently (usually) paying into the system.

It's not a strawman. It's a valid analogy. In pretty much any school district I know of, anyone sending their children to public schools is getting more than they are paying for. That's the nature of making education a publicly financed service. It's the nature of pretty much any publicly financed service. It is a form of wealth redistribution and the same arguments apply.

And my concern is that it's a likely vehicle for expansion of government power if we allow this kind of intervention as a precedent.

The issue of testing welfare/food stamp recipients is more along the lines of making sure what we are paying for is being used properly.

Right. The same argument can be made for public education. Well-meaning citizens, interested in making sure that their tax dollars are being used wisely, might insist the surveillance cameras be placed in the bedrooms of all students - to ensure that they're doing their home work regularly and that they're not cheating. The point is, there all kinds of ways we might like to use government to control other people. But it's in all our interests to set strict limits on how far that goes.

The only connection between the two is the fact the government pays for them. Public schooling is a service, availibe for anyone with kids who doesnt want to pay for a private education. Welfare is a payout, given out because society has decided that it would rather spend government money on people unable or unwilling to support themselves rather than have them attempt to scrape by on thier own, or have charity handle the situation.

You are using the slippery slope argument, and while it may have merits, it doesnt apply to this case. I see nothing wrong in verifying that the money we are paying to people is being used properly, and not for something illegal. Since we are trying to help them, we deserve to know that said payout isnt being wasted, and we have the right to know how it is being spent.



Welfare itself is government intervention to start with.

 

[dblack]

Welfare is a payout, given out because society has decided that it would rather spend government money on people unable or unwilling to support themselves rather than have them attempt to scrape by on thier own, or have charity handle the situation.

OK.. here's what I see. The only difference between the two is that you approve of public education, and you don't approve of welfare. I don't approve of either. But I don't want to see either one uses as an excuse for the state to impose itself on our personal lives.

If you don't approve of welfare, work to get rid of it. I'll help. But please don't simply use it as a way to lord it over others.

 

[martybegan]

Welfare is a payout, given out because society has decided that it would rather spend government money on people unable or unwilling to support themselves rather than have them attempt to scrape by on thier own, or have charity handle the situation.

OK.. here's what I see. The only difference between the two is that you approve of public education, and you don't approve of welfare. I don't approve of either. But I don't want to see either one uses as an excuse for the state to impose itself on our personal lives.

If you don't approve of welfare, work to get rid of it. I'll help. But please don't simply use it as a way to lord it over others.

Any form of law is a way to lord over someone else, its all a matter of degree. When it comes to welfare we are handing out money to people, and there should be the ability to place limits on how that money is spent. Besides following a person on welfare around 24 hours a day, making them get tested for drug use is the next least intrusive way to make sure they don't spend thier money on drugs.

Food stamps are a perfect example of a limited form of government money dispensing. It is easy, however, to monitor as the person has to use said stamp to buy food.

Maybe another way of making sure the money used for welfare is only spent on basics is a voucher system instead of a cash handout, where you get a housing voucher, a food voucher, etc.

 

[Cuyo]

If you do not indulge in illegal drug use, being drug tested should be of no concern to you and understood for what it is intended to do and that is to rid the work place of those kind of hazards. Seems like the people who always complain about drug testing are the people who have very "liberal" views of drug use and most likely are the ones the testing is aimed at removing from the workplace.

Ahh, yes. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

When our neighbor is taking our money (in welfare), we have every right - nay, a duty - to ensure that our money is spent keeping him and his family, not on drugs or alcohol. It's not rocket science.

Then you fail to see the purpose of welfare, which is not inherently empathetic. Giving bare bones keeps the rabble from coming for what you've got. The Romans called it 'Bread and circus.'

 

[Montrovant]

I would much rather see an alternate method of insuring these monies are used properly, such as the voucher idea martybegan mentioned, than drug testing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have ‘presumption of guilt’ issues with drug testing – if you have evidence of a criminal act, place it before a magistrate and obtain a warrant.

The program is also inconsistent. There are persons who get stone-cold drunk during the weekend and show up for work Monday sober to drive a public bus and stay sober all week and on the job. The same would be true for a bus driver smoking a joint over the weekend but the pot user would be fired because that drug is illegal.

Drug use does not necessarily equal incompetence or endangerment. Or the policy should be consistent with regard to alcohol abuse as well.