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

[Wyatt earp]

and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place.

You know that alcohol is much MUCH bigger problem for poor people than other drugs?

What you want to do about alcohol? Nothing you say?
You think drinking 3 or 4 40oz malt liquors is better than a joint or two?

Alcohol is legal under federal law, weed is not.

 

[Pogo]

Says you. The entire debate here is whether anyone should have to give up their rights in exchange for utilizing government service. Some of us are less eager to go down that path.

Says you. I disagree with you. You have said nothing that sways me. Practicing an illegal activity then expecting government to help you continue down that path is wrong. The government is not in the business of enabling illegal drug activity and ruining families.

I can only appeal to a genuine respect for liberty. It's all too rare these days.

I agree, we have liberty and we have freedom and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place. Most drug abusers have other issues and drugs are taken to mask the issue.

Yes, it is asking too much. The responsibility associated with freedom is to respect the freedom of others; to ensure your actions don't bring harm to others and accept accounability for it if they do.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you personally, because that's not my goal here. I'm simply trying to expose what I consider an unacceptable hypocrisy in modern conservatism, particular as it's implemented by the Republican party. For several decades now, Republicans have courted libertarians with claims that they favor limited government and protection of individual liberty. But the claims don't hold water, and drug prohibition policies are a good example.

Drug and alcohol addiction does a lot of damage to others, not just the person using. That I think is my issue. Addicts will use every means they have to get the next fix, giving them cash or food stamps enables them to keep going. Addiction is a huge issue, it ruins millions of people's lives each year.

You aren't picking on me, we are discussing solutions to social issues. I am not a Republican, I am socially conservative, I don't care what either party thinks, I am thinking of those that have been ravaged by addiction and how to help them gain sobriety. I am also for legalizing drugs, taxing them, using the tax dollars for rehab. Less crap dealers can cut the drugs with. Also. We know who is using and who may need help.

How does giving them more money help them break free of their addiction is my question.

So not only do you want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "therefore money must have been involved" but you also want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "addicts".

Hey if you're just going to make it up as you go, why not dispense with the test altogether? I mean you're ignoring the results anyway, might as well quit pissing money away on it.

Next you could prohibit people from ever being physically present in a place where any crime has taken place. Guilt by geographical association. Or if they ever heard of a criminal, then hey they must be one too. Ass-umptions-R-us.

 

[Pogo]

and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place.

You know that alcohol is much MUCH bigger problem for poor people than other drugs?

What you want to do about alcohol? Nothing you say?
You think drinking 3 or 4 40oz malt liquors is better than a joint or two?

But the whole reason for the agriculture revolution was to make enough beer and food to eat..

You can't eat beer.

 

[Moonglow]

and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place.

You know that alcohol is much MUCH bigger problem for poor people than other drugs?

What you want to do about alcohol? Nothing you say?
You think drinking 3 or 4 40oz malt liquors is better than a joint or two?

But the whole reason for the agriculture revolution was to make enough beer and food to eat..

You can't eat beer.

Sure you can, people used to buy the old beer froth from distillers, which was discarded. Why buy it, it has antibiotic compounds...and nutrition..

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Says you. I disagree with you. You have said nothing that sways me. Practicing an illegal activity then expecting government to help you continue down that path is wrong. The government is not in the business of enabling illegal drug activity and ruining families.

I can only appeal to a genuine respect for liberty. It's all too rare these days.

I agree, we have liberty and we have freedom and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place. Most drug abusers have other issues and drugs are taken to mask the issue.

Yes, it is asking too much. The responsibility associated with freedom is to respect the freedom of others; to ensure your actions don't bring harm to others and accept accounability for it if they do.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you personally, because that's not my goal here. I'm simply trying to expose what I consider an unacceptable hypocrisy in modern conservatism, particular as it's implemented by the Republican party. For several decades now, Republicans have courted libertarians with claims that they favor limited government and protection of individual liberty. But the claims don't hold water, and drug prohibition policies are a good example.

Drug and alcohol addiction does a lot of damage to others, not just the person using. That I think is my issue. Addicts will use every means they have to get the next fix, giving them cash or food stamps enables them to keep going. Addiction is a huge issue, it ruins millions of people's lives each year.

You aren't picking on me, we are discussing solutions to social issues. I am not a Republican, I am socially conservative, I don't care what either party thinks, I am thinking of those that have been ravaged by addiction and how to help them gain sobriety. I am also for legalizing drugs, taxing them, using the tax dollars for rehab. Less crap dealers can cut the drugs with. Also. We know who is using and who may need help.

How does giving them more money help them break free of their addiction is my question.

So not only do you want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "therefore money must have been involved" but you also want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "addicts".

Hey if you're just going to make it up as you go, why not dispense with the test altogether? I mean you're ignoring the results anyway, might as well quit pissing money away on it.

Next you could prohibit people from ever being physically present in a place where any crime has taken place. Guilt by geographical association. Or if they ever heard of a criminal, then hey they must be one too. Ass-umptions-R-us.

We're still waiting on the reason why it is ok to take taxpayer assistance because you can't clothe, feed or house yourself and then spend money on illegal drugs.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The individual could have been visiting friends and someone sparked a joint leading to the positive results. No money changing hands, just a social joint. The positive result may be indicative of nothing. It just says someone had access to drugs within X number of days. Not whether or not the drugs were paid for and by whom.

Someone who sparked one joint isn't likely to fail a drug test.

The flaw in this thread (one of them) is that it *never* defined what it meant by "drugs". That's way vague. It could mean anything you want. The OP article never defined it either. Although cannabis is not a drug, it's often lumped in with them, so we're working under the assumption that such a test screens for cannabis. The vagueness of the premise is also underscored by the posters above talking about "addiction" --- they seem to have something else in mind, so ... nobody knows exactly what we're even talking about.

What really says more about the poll is that 28 people voted IN FAVOR of the proposition even though its terms aren't even defined. That speaks eloquently about the level of thought going into it, or lack thereof. As do the fallacies we've pointed out.

 

[Pogo]

and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place.

You know that alcohol is much MUCH bigger problem for poor people than other drugs?

What you want to do about alcohol? Nothing you say?
You think drinking 3 or 4 40oz malt liquors is better than a joint or two?

But the whole reason for the agriculture revolution was to make enough beer and food to eat..

You can't eat beer.

Sure you can, people used to buy the old beer froth from distillers, which was discarded. Why buy it, it has antibiotic compounds...and nutrition..

Izzat where beer nuts come from?

 

[Moonglow]

and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place.

You know that alcohol is much MUCH bigger problem for poor people than other drugs?

What you want to do about alcohol? Nothing you say?
You think drinking 3 or 4 40oz malt liquors is better than a joint or two?

But the whole reason for the agriculture revolution was to make enough beer and food to eat..

You can't eat beer.

Sure you can, people used to buy the old beer froth from distillers, which was discarded. Why buy it, it has antibiotic compounds...and nutrition..

Izzat where beer nuts come from?

Depends if you put the froth in yer pants...

 

[Pogo]

I can only appeal to a genuine respect for liberty. It's all too rare these days.

I agree, we have liberty and we have freedom and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place. Most drug abusers have other issues and drugs are taken to mask the issue.

Yes, it is asking too much. The responsibility associated with freedom is to respect the freedom of others; to ensure your actions don't bring harm to others and accept accounability for it if they do.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you personally, because that's not my goal here. I'm simply trying to expose what I consider an unacceptable hypocrisy in modern conservatism, particular as it's implemented by the Republican party. For several decades now, Republicans have courted libertarians with claims that they favor limited government and protection of individual liberty. But the claims don't hold water, and drug prohibition policies are a good example.

Drug and alcohol addiction does a lot of damage to others, not just the person using. That I think is my issue. Addicts will use every means they have to get the next fix, giving them cash or food stamps enables them to keep going. Addiction is a huge issue, it ruins millions of people's lives each year.

You aren't picking on me, we are discussing solutions to social issues. I am not a Republican, I am socially conservative, I don't care what either party thinks, I am thinking of those that have been ravaged by addiction and how to help them gain sobriety. I am also for legalizing drugs, taxing them, using the tax dollars for rehab. Less crap dealers can cut the drugs with. Also. We know who is using and who may need help.

How does giving them more money help them break free of their addiction is my question.

So not only do you want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "therefore money must have been involved" but you also want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "addicts".

Hey if you're just going to make it up as you go, why not dispense with the test altogether? I mean you're ignoring the results anyway, might as well quit pissing money away on it.

Next you could prohibit people from ever being physically present in a place where any crime has taken place. Guilt by geographical association. Or if they ever heard of a criminal, then hey they must be one too. Ass-umptions-R-us.

We're still waiting on the reason why it is ok to take taxpayer assistance because you can't clothe, feed or house yourself and then spend money on illegal drugs.

Personally I'm still waiting for anybody anywhere to demonstrate how a chemical test can determine what you "spent money on". What does it do --- spit out a little debit card receipt?

That question never closes. It's open 24/7, 366.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I agree, we have liberty and we have freedom and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place. Most drug abusers have other issues and drugs are taken to mask the issue.

Yes, it is asking too much. The responsibility associated with freedom is to respect the freedom of others; to ensure your actions don't bring harm to others and accept accounability for it if they do.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you personally, because that's not my goal here. I'm simply trying to expose what I consider an unacceptable hypocrisy in modern conservatism, particular as it's implemented by the Republican party. For several decades now, Republicans have courted libertarians with claims that they favor limited government and protection of individual liberty. But the claims don't hold water, and drug prohibition policies are a good example.

Drug and alcohol addiction does a lot of damage to others, not just the person using. That I think is my issue. Addicts will use every means they have to get the next fix, giving them cash or food stamps enables them to keep going. Addiction is a huge issue, it ruins millions of people's lives each year.

You aren't picking on me, we are discussing solutions to social issues. I am not a Republican, I am socially conservative, I don't care what either party thinks, I am thinking of those that have been ravaged by addiction and how to help them gain sobriety. I am also for legalizing drugs, taxing them, using the tax dollars for rehab. Less crap dealers can cut the drugs with. Also. We know who is using and who may need help.

How does giving them more money help them break free of their addiction is my question.

So not only do you want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "therefore money must have been involved" but you also want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "addicts".

Hey if you're just going to make it up as you go, why not dispense with the test altogether? I mean you're ignoring the results anyway, might as well quit pissing money away on it.

Next you could prohibit people from ever being physically present in a place where any crime has taken place. Guilt by geographical association. Or if they ever heard of a criminal, then hey they must be one too. Ass-umptions-R-us.

We're still waiting on the reason why it is ok to take taxpayer assistance because you can't clothe, feed or house yourself and then spend money on illegal drugs.

Personally I'm still waiting for anybody anywhere to demonstrate how a chemical test can determine what you "spent money on".

That question never closes. It's open 24/7, 366.

If you test positive for cannabis or heroin, where'd ya get it? That benevolent drug dealer who gives away drugs? Please if you test positive then you are doing drugs.

Christ, it ain't that difficult.

 

[Pogo]

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance.

Says you. The entire debate here is whether anyone should have to give up their rights in exchange for utilizing government service. Some of us are less eager to go down that path.

Says you. I disagree with you. You have said nothing that sways me. Practicing an illegal activity then expecting government to help you continue down that path is wrong. The government is not in the business of enabling illegal drug activity and ruining families.

I can only appeal to a genuine respect for liberty. It's all too rare these days.

I agree, we have liberty and we have freedom and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place. Most drug abusers have other issues and drugs are taken to mask the issue.

Yes, it is asking too much. The responsibility associated with freedom is to respect the freedom of others; to ensure your actions don't bring harm to others and accept accounability for it if they do.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you personally, because that's not my goal here. I'm simply trying to expose what I consider an unacceptable hypocrisy in modern conservatism, particular as it's implemented by the Republican party. For several decades now, Republicans have courted libertarians with claims that they favor limited government and protection of individual liberty. But the claims don't hold water, and drug prohibition policies are a good example.

Zackly. It's a spit on the Fourth Amendment. The same Statist mentality that brings us phone tapping, email tapping, übermilitary policing, the PATRIOT Act, and the idea of attaching GPS units to all cars to track where you go, purportedly so they can tax on mileage.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, it is asking too much. The responsibility associated with freedom is to respect the freedom of others; to ensure your actions don't bring harm to others and accept accounability for it if they do.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you personally, because that's not my goal here. I'm simply trying to expose what I consider an unacceptable hypocrisy in modern conservatism, particular as it's implemented by the Republican party. For several decades now, Republicans have courted libertarians with claims that they favor limited government and protection of individual liberty. But the claims don't hold water, and drug prohibition policies are a good example.

Drug and alcohol addiction does a lot of damage to others, not just the person using. That I think is my issue. Addicts will use every means they have to get the next fix, giving them cash or food stamps enables them to keep going. Addiction is a huge issue, it ruins millions of people's lives each year.

You aren't picking on me, we are discussing solutions to social issues. I am not a Republican, I am socially conservative, I don't care what either party thinks, I am thinking of those that have been ravaged by addiction and how to help them gain sobriety. I am also for legalizing drugs, taxing them, using the tax dollars for rehab. Less crap dealers can cut the drugs with. Also. We know who is using and who may need help.

How does giving them more money help them break free of their addiction is my question.

So not only do you want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "therefore money must have been involved" but you also want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "addicts".

Hey if you're just going to make it up as you go, why not dispense with the test altogether? I mean you're ignoring the results anyway, might as well quit pissing money away on it.

Next you could prohibit people from ever being physically present in a place where any crime has taken place. Guilt by geographical association. Or if they ever heard of a criminal, then hey they must be one too. Ass-umptions-R-us.

We're still waiting on the reason why it is ok to take taxpayer assistance because you can't clothe, feed or house yourself and then spend money on illegal drugs.

Personally I'm still waiting for anybody anywhere to demonstrate how a chemical test can determine what you "spent money on".

That question never closes. It's open 24/7, 366.

If you test positive for cannabis or heroin, where'd ya get it? That benevolent drug dealer who gives away drugs? Please if you test positive then you are doing drugs.

Christ, it ain't that difficult.

Where's the connection to money?

Indeed it ain't. Because nobody anywhere has ever shared a joint. Ever.

 

[OldLady]

They all did free dope? Doubt it!...lol

Cough up receipts that conftirm that 100% Of their welfare check was spent according to the rules. Of there's a difference, that amount will be subtracted from next month's check.

Don't like it? Get off welfare and stop wasting my money.

"I doubt it" is not an argument.
You lose.

Prove it. Let's see a link supporting your argument. Drugs aren't free.

I haven't made the claim of a money chain. *YOU* have. So YOU prove it.

You claimed the drugs weren't purchased. The ball's in your court.

I say cut'em off.

I think he means "purchased by the person who fail the drug test" as in a buddy may have shared the dope with the test subject.
In other words, somebody else could have bought the drugs and shared it with the test subject.

There are several ways to obtain drugs, buying is just one way.

True. You can grow your own pot. You can cook your own meth.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

"I doubt it" is not an argument.
You lose.

Prove it. Let's see a link supporting your argument. Drugs aren't free.

I haven't made the claim of a money chain. *YOU* have. So YOU prove it.

You claimed the drugs weren't purchased. The ball's in your court.

I say cut'em off.

I think he means "purchased by the person who fail the drug test" as in a buddy may have shared the dope with the test subject.
In other words, somebody else could have bought the drugs and shared it with the test subject.

There are several ways to obtain drugs, buying is just one way.

True. You can grow your own pot. You can cook your own meth.

You still have to buy supplies and ingredients.

Liberals still fail to understand that nothing is free.

 

[Pogo]

Prove it. Let's see a link supporting your argument. Drugs aren't free.

I haven't made the claim of a money chain. *YOU* have. So YOU prove it.

You claimed the drugs weren't purchased. The ball's in your court.

I say cut'em off.

I think he means "purchased by the person who fail the drug test" as in a buddy may have shared the dope with the test subject.
In other words, somebody else could have bought the drugs and shared it with the test subject.

There are several ways to obtain drugs, buying is just one way.

True. You can grow your own pot. You can cook your own meth.

You still have to buy supplies and ingredients.

Liberals still fail to understand that nothing is free.

What a sad pathetic world some people live in where nobody shares and nothing happens without some kind of crude "profit motive".

 

[Fair&Balanced]

and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place.

You know that alcohol is much MUCH bigger problem for poor people than other drugs?

What you want to do about alcohol? Nothing you say?
You think drinking 3 or 4 40oz malt liquors is better than a joint or two?

Alcohol is legal under federal law, weed isn't

Irrelevant, and part of the reason you can' get reasonable liberals, and they DO exist, to compromise with you.

If you are spending $25-50 a week on beer instead of food, that is a poor choice that the US taxpayer should not have to subsidize in the form of SNAP

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

I haven't made the claim of a money chain. *YOU* have. So YOU prove it.

You claimed the drugs weren't purchased. The ball's in your court.

I say cut'em off.

I think he means "purchased by the person who fail the drug test" as in a buddy may have shared the dope with the test subject.
In other words, somebody else could have bought the drugs and shared it with the test subject.

There are several ways to obtain drugs, buying is just one way.

True. You can grow your own pot. You can cook your own meth.

You still have to buy supplies and ingredients.

Liberals still fail to understand that nothing is free.

What a sad pathetic world some people live in where nobody shares and nothing happens without some kind of crude "profit motive".

The dope trade is a billion+ dollar a year business. What's sad, is that you believe all these people got their dope for free.

 

[Bonzi]

that's all just great - nothing will change you are waiting your time an finger engergy

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I agree, we have liberty and we have freedom and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place. Most drug abusers have other issues and drugs are taken to mask the issue.

Yes, it is asking too much. The responsibility associated with freedom is to respect the freedom of others; to ensure your actions don't bring harm to others and accept accounability for it if they do.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you personally, because that's not my goal here. I'm simply trying to expose what I consider an unacceptable hypocrisy in modern conservatism, particular as it's implemented by the Republican party. For several decades now, Republicans have courted libertarians with claims that they favor limited government and protection of individual liberty. But the claims don't hold water, and drug prohibition policies are a good example.

Drug and alcohol addiction does a lot of damage to others, not just the person using. That I think is my issue. Addicts will use every means they have to get the next fix, giving them cash or food stamps enables them to keep going. Addiction is a huge issue, it ruins millions of people's lives each year.

You aren't picking on me, we are discussing solutions to social issues. I am not a Republican, I am socially conservative, I don't care what either party thinks, I am thinking of those that have been ravaged by addiction and how to help them gain sobriety. I am also for legalizing drugs, taxing them, using the tax dollars for rehab. Less crap dealers can cut the drugs with. Also. We know who is using and who may need help.

How does giving them more money help them break free of their addiction is my question.

So not only do you want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "therefore money must have been involved" but you also want to stretch "presence of a substance" into "addicts".

Hey if you're just going to make it up as you go, why not dispense with the test altogether? I mean you're ignoring the results anyway, might as well quit pissing money away on it.

Next you could prohibit people from ever being physically present in a place where any crime has taken place. Guilt by geographical association. Or if they ever heard of a criminal, then hey they must be one too. Ass-umptions-R-us.

We're still waiting on the reason why it is ok to take taxpayer assistance because you can't clothe, feed or house yourself and then spend money on illegal drugs.

Personally I'm still waiting for anybody anywhere to demonstrate how a chemical test can determine what you "spent money on". What does it do --- spit out a little debit card receipt?

That question never closes. It's open 24/7, 366.

So, you also have no desire to be logical , honest, and actually work to solve issues eh? No wonder we're in the situation we're in.

 

[Bonzi]

What a waste to time an energy these pie in the sky ideas are.

Write your congressman and creating full like the fags an liberals do