why is the left against drug testing for welfare?

[blastoff]

If we can drug test people being paid to perform work, provide a service, etc., it seems to me people being provided taxpayers' money should be held to similar testing.

Ah, but can't risk turning off busted freeloaders come election time.

 

[Papageorgio]

If we can drug test people being paid to perform work, provide a service, etc., it seems to me people being provided taxpayers' money should be held to similar testing.

Ah, but can't risk turning off busted freeloaders come election time.

There is the reason for the liberal objection.

 

[Pogo]

If we can drug test people being paid to perform work, provide a service, etc., it seems to me people being provided taxpayers' money should be held to similar testing.

Ah, but can't risk turning off busted freeloaders come election time.

The premise is inoperative.

If we can drug test people being paid to perform work, provide a service, etc., it seems to me people being provided taxpayers' money should be held to similar testing.

Ah, but can't risk turning off busted freeloaders come election time.

There is the reason for the liberal objection.

And that ^^ is a strawman constructed by intellects too weak to process information.

The Liberal believes that pinning a citizen down and extracting bodily fluids is sliiiiiiiiiiightly over the line of reasonable search and seizure. That means ANY citizen.

Authoritarian sycophants can only stand by and murmur "when they came for my blood I said nothing..." because that's what you're made of.

Wimp.

 

[Pogo]

so why?
is it because u dont want them to better themselves?
you all care as much about their drug habbit as they do!
I seriously dont understand the justification to be against that

Why do you advocate increasing the power and scope of govt. when your party claims to be against such?

There it is ^^^ -- the question that dare not speak its answer.

 

[Pogo]

Why should someone who uses drugs be ineligible for welfare?

They need different help, not welfare, we as a society should not enable these victims.

Who says they need help?

Maybe they like to do recreational drugs because it makes them feel better.

Why should they be ineligible for welfare?

Another good point. To be found to have a substance in one's system in no way proves (a) that they paid money for it, nor (b) that that substance prevents them from working. So there's no logical basis for this government intrusion the wimps want to bend over for, even if it WERE a reasonable search and seizure.

Basically all they're doing is applauding the mentality of "Reefer Madness". It's trying to use the government to enforce a social more.

 

[Pogo]

Guess you're pretty lucky then. If people can refuse to take the test, then why do most businesses then refuse to hire them because of it? How do they get away with it if it's not lawful? Seems that would be discrimination and they could sue for that.....explain how they get away with it.

Far as I'm concerned they can't get away with it. All I know is I refused to play that game.

Do they really refuse to hire on that basis? Or are they dealing with a bunch of sheep too docile to stand up to tyranny? I don't know myself, I just flatly refuse to do it, and as far as possible I don't shop at places of business that trumpet "we drug test employees" on their front door either.

The question really isn't "can they get away with it". The question is, why would anyone give in? The fact is if everybody refused to submit, they will back down. Have some backbone and try it. Because giving in is selling the rest of us out.

that is the most ignorant thing I have seen u write. a business not wanting bunch of druggies is not tyranny, it is smart.
wtf is wrong with u people? the OP got yall grasping at straws! LOL

You've deliberately (?) misrepresented the question.

The question is NOT "does a company want a bunch of druggies". The question is "does a government/employer have the right to your bodily fluids?". Interesting that you have to change the question in order to get the answer you want, innit? I find it fascinating myself.

Grasping at straws? You can't even spell out the word "you" I am not Burmese. Did you get drug tested before posting that?

Come up with an answer to the actual question, and we'll get somewhere.

 

[Papageorgio]

If we can drug test people being paid to perform work, provide a service, etc., it seems to me people being provided taxpayers' money should be held to similar testing.

Ah, but can't risk turning off busted freeloaders come election time.

The premise is inoperative.

If we can drug test people being paid to perform work, provide a service, etc., it seems to me people being provided taxpayers' money should be held to similar testing.

Ah, but can't risk turning off busted freeloaders come election time.

There is the reason for the liberal objection.

And that ^^ is a strawman constructed by intellects too weak to process information.

The Liberal believes that pinning a citizen down and extracting bodily fluids is sliiiiiiiiiiightly over the line of reasonable search and seizure. That means ANY citizen.

Authoritarian sycophants can only stand by and murmur "when they came for my blood I said nothing..." because that's what you're made of.

Wimp.

No one is pinned down. It is a choice, I want a job, I take a test, I want welfare, I take a test.

You seem to be the wimp, you refuse to answer lots questions. Now is when you will plead ignorant as to what questions, so carry on.

 

[Pogo]

If we can drug test people being paid to perform work, provide a service, etc., it seems to me people being provided taxpayers' money should be held to similar testing.

Ah, but can't risk turning off busted freeloaders come election time.

The premise is inoperative.

There is the reason for the liberal objection.

And that ^^ is a strawman constructed by intellects too weak to process information.

The Liberal believes that pinning a citizen down and extracting bodily fluids is sliiiiiiiiiiightly over the line of reasonable search and seizure. That means ANY citizen.

Authoritarian sycophants can only stand by and murmur "when they came for my blood I said nothing..." because that's what you're made of.

Wimp.

No one is pinned down. It is a choice, I want a job, I take a test, I want welfare, I take a test.

You seem to be the wimp, you refuse to answer lots questions. Now is when you will plead ignorant as to what questions, so carry on.

I just posted four or five answers in a row. You don't have the guts to handle them.

 

[Papageorgio]

The premise is inoperative.




And that ^^ is a strawman constructed by intellects too weak to process information.

The Liberal believes that pinning a citizen down and extracting bodily fluids is sliiiiiiiiiiightly over the line of reasonable search and seizure. That means ANY citizen.

Authoritarian sycophants can only stand by and murmur "when they came for my blood I said nothing..." because that's what you're made of.

Wimp.

No one is pinned down. It is a choice, I want a job, I take a test, I want welfare, I take a test.

You seem to be the wimp, you refuse to answer lots questions. Now is when you will plead ignorant as to what questions, so carry on.

I just posted four or five answers in a row. You don't have the guts to handle them.

Yeah, very selective. I'll check back on this and other threads to see what selective answers you give, take care.

 

[Moonglow]

I refused to succumb to the corporatist invasion of my privacy. I worked self employed for 25 years.

 

[Papageorgio]

I refused to succumb to the corporatist invasion of my privacy. I worked self employed for 25 years.

Good for you. With all the drinking and driving you do, you would be a huge risk to hire.

 

[Freemason9]

I think only those who have a drug problem should be tested not those who don't.

Just because someone is on welfare doesn't mean they're a druggie.

Despite what the masses think there are people on welfare who really need it.

Ok...how many do you think will admit they have a drug problem? How do you know if they're not tested?

And of course everyone knows just because someone is on welfare it doesn't mean they're druggies....but testing would rule it out.

And...the "masses" know there are many people out there that really need it. But if you're applying for a job, you are going to be drug tested. Why shouldn't someone applying for free money and food also have to be tested?

**** the government, and **** you and your "conservative" friends. You have no right to search my bloodstream or anyone else's without a warrant.

You're just another Republican authoritarian freak.

 

[Freemason9]

If we can drug test people being paid to perform work, provide a service, etc., it seems to me people being provided taxpayers' money should be held to similar testing.

Ah, but can't risk turning off busted freeloaders come election time.

There is the reason for the liberal objection.

i believe the reason has to do with unreasonable search and seizure.

You Republicans love the idea of an authoritarian police state. This is exactly why I never, ever vote Republican. You guys are freaks.

 

[Papageorgio]

I think only those who have a drug problem should be tested not those who don't.

Just because someone is on welfare doesn't mean they're a druggie.

Despite what the masses think there are people on welfare who really need it.

Ok...how many do you think will admit they have a drug problem? How do you know if they're not tested?

And of course everyone knows just because someone is on welfare it doesn't mean they're druggies....but testing would rule it out.

And...the "masses" know there are many people out there that really need it. But if you're applying for a job, you are going to be drug tested. Why shouldn't someone applying for free money and food also have to be tested?

**** the government, and **** you and your "conservative" friends. You have no right to search my bloodstream or anyone else's without a warrant.

You're just another Republican authoritarian freak.

Who is telling you, you have to do a pee test?

BTW! I'm not a Republican, to many issues with them.

 

[TNHarley]

Far as I'm concerned they can't get away with it. All I know is I refused to play that game.

Do they really refuse to hire on that basis? Or are they dealing with a bunch of sheep too docile to stand up to tyranny? I don't know myself, I just flatly refuse to do it, and as far as possible I don't shop at places of business that trumpet "we drug test employees" on their front door either.

The question really isn't "can they get away with it". The question is, why would anyone give in? The fact is if everybody refused to submit, they will back down. Have some backbone and try it. Because giving in is selling the rest of us out.

that is the most ignorant thing I have seen u write. a business not wanting bunch of druggies is not tyranny, it is smart.
wtf is wrong with u people? the OP got yall grasping at straws! LOL

You've deliberately (?) misrepresented the question.

The question is NOT "does a company want a bunch of druggies". The question is "does a government/employer have the right to your bodily fluids?". Interesting that you have to change the question in order to get the answer you want, innit? I find it fascinating myself.

Grasping at straws? You can't even spell out the word "you" I am not Burmese. Did you get drug tested before posting that?

Come up with an answer to the actual question, and we'll get somewhere.

an emploter absolutely has a right. they pay you to do work for them.. just like I agree about public servants being drug tested.

 

[Luissa]

so why?
is it because u dont want them to better themselves?
you all care as much about their drug habbit as they do!
I seriously dont understand the justification to be against that

Because it costs a hell of a lot more than it saves, and in the case of Florida it violates certain rights and was proven unconstitutional.
So the question is, why do you support it?

 

[TNHarley]

we are nit talking some fuckin drug test in the street, people.
if u think regulations for FREE benefits are invasion of privacy, then why dont u all try to get them a job? I mean, that is the GOAL, right?
but u wont and instead just point fingers at the mean old republicans because they velieve in responsibility.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm not sure exactly what the OP means by the word, "welfare', but I do know that liberals do not want innocent children who are unfortunate to have been born to drug addicted parents to go homeless and hungry, if we can do anything about it.

 

[TNHarley]

I find it amusing the socialists are on here talking about freedoms and illegal seizures.
ONLY WHEN IT FITS YOUR AGENDA
I just dont see how that is invasion of privacy. sure, it is your life but you are spending OUR money on it just to continue to sit on your ass

 

[TNHarley]

I'm not sure exactly what the OP means by the word, "welfare', but I do know that liberals do not want innocent children who are unfortunate to have been born to drug addicted parents to go homeless and hungry, if we can do anything about it.

I agree
BUT are you saying instead we should just lwt them continue to be raised by their addict parents?