NC New Welfare Drug Test Law: 1/3rd Tested Positive from Sample.

[LogikAndReazon]

How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.

Sure there is...... Drug using parasites shouldnt det a nickel of public assistance...... SIMPLE

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.

People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.

Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more intereslted in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.

If you can afford drugs, you're making bad choices in not buying food first, and don't deserve the help and to hell with anyone too stupid to agree with that.

Again, and this has been pointed out before, the presence of some substance in your bloodstream does not automatically mean that money changed hands to put it there, let alone whose money it was. That's a conclusion without a bridge.

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Let's drug test every kid who goes to public school. Why should we pay for the education of an addict?

 

[Pogo]

You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.

People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.

Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more intereslted in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.

If you can afford drugs, you're making bad choices in not buying food first, and don't deserve the help and to hell with anyone too stupid to agree with that.

Again, and this has been pointed out before, the presence of some substance in your bloodstream does not automatically mean that money changed hands to put it there, let alone whose money it was. That's a conclusion without a bridge.

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If you can afford drugs, you're making bad choices in not buying food first, and don't deserve the help and to hell with anyone too stupid to agree with that.

Again, and this has been pointed out before, the presence of some substance in your bloodstream does not automatically mean that money changed hands to put it there, let alone whose money it was. That's a conclusion without a bridge.

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If you can afford drugs, you're making bad choices in not buying food first, and don't deserve the help and to hell with anyone too stupid to agree with that.

Again, and this has been pointed out before, the presence of some substance in your bloodstream does not automatically mean that money changed hands to put it there, let alone whose money it was. That's a conclusion without a bridge.

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

It's called common sense and honesty. Both of which you obviously lack. NO ONE is getting free recreational drugs.

 

[dblack]

Again, and this has been pointed out before, the presence of some substance in your bloodstream does not automatically mean that money changed hands to put it there, let alone whose money it was. That's a conclusion without a bridge.

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this with the public at large, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because the targets are people taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because they're taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

I don't like? So, you'd be OK taking in a friend in who is down on their luck, they contribute nothing, then every time they get a few bucks, they get drunk or high? How long would you allow that to continue?

Looka, personally, I don't want ANYONE to need welfare

 

[Pogo]

Again, and this has been pointed out before, the presence of some substance in your bloodstream does not automatically mean that money changed hands to put it there, let alone whose money it was. That's a conclusion without a bridge.

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

It's called common sense and honesty. Both of which you obviously lack. NO ONE is getting free recreational drugs.

So ------ you can't do it either. Falling back on the "everybody knows" ass-umption.

Predictable.

This is why I think things through before I post.

 

[Muhammed]

Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.

Who's the math genius here?

But it creates jobs!

/sarcasm

 

[dblack]

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because they're taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

I don't like? So, you'd be OK taking in a friend in who is down on their luck, they contribute nothing, then every time they get a few bucks, they get drunk or high? How long would you allow that to continue?

Again, you have no evidence this is happening. If there is evidence that warrants a legitimate investigation, according to the rules of due process that protect all of us, go for it. Prosecute them, put them in jail and knock them off the welfare roles. Otherwise leave them alone.

As I've stated here previously, I'm fundamentally opposed to the welfare state. It creates dependency that invites just the kind of abuse of individual rights you're advocating.

 

[Vandalshandle]

My wife used to give me a Valium from time to time when I had trouble sleeping. Since I have no prescription for it, I guess that makes me a opioid abuser who is not eligible for any government assistance.

 

[Pogo]

Again, and this has been pointed out before, the presence of some substance in your bloodstream does not automatically mean that money changed hands to put it there, let alone whose money it was. That's a conclusion without a bridge.

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

*WHAT* money?

You've found evidence of some substance; you have not found evidence of "money".

Can you not tell the difference? Because if you can't, I'd like to borrow some weed. It's printed on green paper.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because they're taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

I don't like? So, you'd be OK taking in a friend in who is down on their luck, they contribute nothing, then every time they get a few bucks, they get drunk or high? How long would you allow that to continue?

Again, you have no evidence this is happening. If there is evidence that warrants a legitimate investigation, according to the rules of due process that protect all of us, go for it. Prosecute them, put them in jail and knock them off the welfare roles. Otherwise leave them alone.

As I've stated here previously, I'm fundamentally opposed to the welfare state. It creates dependency that invites just the kind of abuse of individual rights you're advocating.

Meh, I dunno.... I agree with your last statements though. Unfortunately when you rely on others to take care of you, you give up certain freedoms. That my friend is reality.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

*WHAT* money?

You've found evidence of some substance; you have not found evidence of "money".

Can you not tell the difference? Because if you can't, I'd like to borrow some weed. It's printed on green paper.

This makes no sense. You can't be this dense.

 

[Pogo]

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this with the public at large, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because the targets are people taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

"Fishing expedition" is exactly what it is. And it requires a bridge to its conclusion, a bridge that does not exist. The inability of the fishing expeditionists here to demonstrate such bridge just confirms that.

Oh look, there's a guy smoking a cigarette. Therefore we "know" he spent money on cigarettes. And the only place to buy cigarettes around here is the Quick Mart, so we "know" he bought them at Quick Mart. And Quick Mart just got robbed, so we "know" he did it. Lock 'im up.

 

[dblack]

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because they're taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

I don't like? So, you'd be OK taking in a friend in who is down on their luck, they contribute nothing, then every time they get a few bucks, they get drunk or high? How long would you allow that to continue?

Again, you have no evidence this is happening. If there is evidence that warrants a legitimate investigation, according to the rules of due process that protect all of us, go for it. Prosecute them, put them in jail and knock them off the welfare roles. Otherwise leave them alone.

As I've stated here previously, I'm fundamentally opposed to the welfare state. It creates dependency that invites just the kind of abuse of individual rights you're advocating.

Meh, I dunno.... I agree with your last statements though. Unfortunately when you rely on others to take care of you, you give up certain freedoms. That my friend is reality.

But why would you want this to be worse than it already is? Have you thought about how this might be applied to other forms of the 'caretaker' state?

Let's say the statists get their way and socialize health care. Should that be an excuse to drug test ALL of us? Or to invade our privacy in countless other ways in the name of the state's 'vested interest' in our health?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this with the public at large, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because the targets are people taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

"Fishing expedition" is exactly what it is. And it requires a bridge to its conclusion, a bridge that does not exist. The inability of the fishing expeditionists here to demonstrate such bridge just confirms that.

Oh look, there's a guy smoking a cigarette. Therefore we "know" he spent money on cigarettes. And the only place to buy cigarettes around here is the Quick Mart, so we "know" he bought them at Quick Mart. And Quick Mart just got robbed, so we "know" he did it. Lock 'im up.

That's about the stupidest thing I have read today.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this with the public at large, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because the targets are people taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

"Fishing expedition" is exactly what it is. And it requires a bridge to its conclusion, a bridge that does not exist. The inability of the fishing expeditionists here to demonstrate such bridge just confirms that.

Oh look, there's a guy smoking a cigarette. Therefore we "know" he spent money on cigarettes. And the only place to buy cigarettes around here is the Quick Mart, so we "know" he bought them at Quick Mart. And Quick Mart just got robbed, so we "know" he did it. Lock 'im up.

I'm trying to be patient here, but you are patently stupid.

It's no more of a "fishing expedition" than being screened at the airport is, and much like being screened at the airport, you have signed away your right to privacy when you agreed to enter the airport/take the welfare. Are you aware, for example, that currently the government CAN view your banking records if you sign up for welfare? This is no different.

 

[Pogo]

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this with the public at large, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because the targets are people taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

"Fishing expedition" is exactly what it is. And it requires a bridge to its conclusion, a bridge that does not exist. The inability of the fishing expeditionists here to demonstrate such bridge just confirms that.

Oh look, there's a guy smoking a cigarette. Therefore we "know" he spent money on cigarettes. And the only place to buy cigarettes around here is the Quick Mart, so we "know" he bought them at Quick Mart. And Quick Mart just got robbed, so we "know" he did it. Lock 'im up.

That's about the stupidest thing I have read today.

Thanks. That's what I was going for. Because it's the exact same logic.