The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Happy Fun Ball on January 23, 2008, 09:23:26 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2736659#2739501 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2736659#2739501)
iamthebandfanman (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-21-08 07:10 PM
Original message
Welfare recipients to be drug tested...
Edited on Mon Jan-21-08 07:28 PM by iamthebandfanman
i was reading in a local paper in kentucky today that theres a bill in the house of Kentucky (house bill 190) that would call for anyone receiving welfare to be drug tested... how does everyone fell about that notion ?
http://www.maysville-online.com/articles/2008/01/21/local_news/1685welfare.txt
There's a lot of action here on this thread, but this really got my attention:
Webster Green (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-21-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. They should be given drugs, not tested for them.
When you are down and out, a little heroin or cocaine can really lift your spirits.
Yes, he's serious about this too.
Wcross (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-21-08 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. Your plan is craptacular!
Adding drug addiction to a welfare recipiants list of problems was just sarcasm, right? What is the state going to do if they fail a drug test, fire them? How would that work?
Webster Green (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-21-08 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. It's the illegality that makes no sense..
Of course I'm against drug testing because I think drugs should all be legal.
Addiction isn't a problem until you run out. Just make sure everyone has a nice supply of whatever it is they like.
Wcross (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-21-08 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. The war on drugs, the war nobody wants to end.
It has become an industry. Drug testing companies, private prison companies, rehabilitation clinics, drug smugglers, drug dealers, the defense industry & various governmental agencies that can confiscate property without due process. Are they going to give up all that for a little freedom? They need to fill prison beds in order to make a profit. They need to confiscate property in order to fund the war they don't want to win. The more offenders the better.
DadOf2LittleAngels (445 posts) Tue Jan-22-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
74. What a load of crap
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 05:19 PM by DadOf2LittleAngels
"Addiction isn't a problem until you run out."
Right smokers and alcoholics (and their families) dont suffer so long as they have booze and alcohol...
Webster Green (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-22-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. That stuff is already legal.
Harm is reduced by legalization and education.
Criminalization and constant bullshit propaganda do nothing to solve the problems associated with substance abuse.
Heroin is much less toxic than alcohol, and it feels great. I've known a lot of junkies who function just fine, hold steady jobs, whatever. I'm not exactly recommending it, but our current approach makes no sense at all. There will always be people who want to take advantage of the amazing plants on this earth in order to get high. Big ****ing deal! Why are our brains wired with receptors for this stuff if we aren't supposed to use it?
DadOf2LittleAngels (445 posts) Tue Jan-22-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #77
85. Really
"Harm is reduced by legalization and education."
Really gee we have a ton of education on the dangers of smoking cigeretts every year yet kids still light up..
"Criminalization and constant bullshit propaganda do nothing to solve the problems associated with substance abuse."
Never said they did chap, I merely refuted your claim that 'if its legal and available the problems go away' After all alchol is legal and any kid of an alcoholic can tell you a legal available substance can lead to domestic violence and damaged relationships.
Webster Green (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-22-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. Harm reduction doesn't mean all the problems go away..
If alcohol and tobacco were illegal, the harm associated with those substances would increase.
DadOf2LittleAngels (445 posts) Tue Jan-22-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #90
104. You said
"Addiction isn't a problem until you run out."
This is whay you said and its flat out *WRONG*..
Webster Green (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-23-08 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #104
108. Wow!....You really don't get the concept of harm reduction at all..
When the junkie is seeking a black market substance, he'll steal your tee-vee to get a fix. If the stuff was legal, and available in controlled doses, then the crime and overdose problems would decrease.
Try to keep in mind that many people will continue to attempt to alter their perception, regardless of any puritanical taboos that might exist. No amount of piss-testing or prison building will change that.
The line you quoted me on was slightly tongue-in-cheek, as was my original reply to the OP, but I still stand by them, in the context of getting people to think about harm reduction versus criminalization and propaganda.
Some folks who are really down and out could probably benefit from a little pick-me-up, or maybe a little lay-me-down. If I was living under a bridge, I wouldn't hesitate to do a nice blast of heroin to feel a little better. Big ****ing deal!
What.
An.
Idiot.
-
The DUmmies love of the altered state aside, I am not a fan of drug testing. I would be more accepting if every mandatory drug test was accompanied by the requirement that a second independent test be performed by a lab representing the test subject. The same goes for polygraph tests.
-
Oh no, Happy.
More primitive "thoughts," recycled.
This was on Skins's island just three months ago.
I don't know if it's the same primitive posting it, though, but the wording is exact.
Damn, the primitives can never come up with any new ideas or thoughts; it's always the same thing over and over and over again, like a mentally-retarded child constantly banging on a wooden peg with a wooden hammer.
-
Good Golly, someone needs to start a DUmmy "Hall of Fame" and slap that thread in the top ten.
Does anyone ever point out the fact that the junkies will still steal "your tee vee", because even if heroin is legal, it will still cost MONEY? Or is Wusster Green being literal when he says,
Webster Green (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-21-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. They should be given drugs, not tested for them.
When you are down and out, a little heroin or cocaine can really lift your spirits.
-
He has to be a mole, there is no way anyone could be that freaking stupid unless they burned their brains out with drugs. :whatever:
-
It will never fly. The ACLU will be all over this like a homeless guy on a half eaten big mac.......equal protection under the law?
-
Good Golly, someone needs to start a DUmmy "Hall of Fame" and slap that thread in the top ten.
Does anyone ever point out the fact that the junkies will still steal "your tee vee", because even if heroin is legal, it will still cost MONEY? Or is Wusster Green being literal when he says,
Webster Green (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-21-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. They should be given drugs, not tested for them.
When you are down and out, a little heroin or cocaine can really lift your spirits.
I think he was also advocating drugs be provided for free, evidently especially for welfare recipients. I like the idea of drug testing welfare recipients...why should they get taxpayer money so they can use it to get loaded? I don't have a problem with companies drug testing either. A few years back a school bus driver in our area failed a drug test (they allowed her more than one). I'm betting the parents were pretty happy the bus company tested their employees.
Cindie
-
^I think that if most employers require random drug testing, then why shouldn't the govt? After all, that's MY money they are using to fund these entitlement programs. Money I earned because I passed a random drug test.
-
^I think that if most employers require random drug testing, then why shouldn't the govt? After all, that's MY money they are using to fund these entitlement programs. Money I earned because I passed a random drug test.
That's what I was thinking. If you have to pass a drug to get a job, why should you not have to be tested while sitting on your ass with your hand out.
-
^I think that if most employers require random drug testing, then why shouldn't the govt? After all, that's MY money they are using to fund these entitlement programs. Money I earned because I passed a random drug test.
That's what I was thinking. If you have to pass a drug to get a job, why should you not have to be tested while sitting on your ass with your hand out.
Not to mention, failing a drug test will prevent the lazy bums from getting a job, thus perpetuating the problem.
-
^I think that if most employers require random drug testing, then why shouldn't the govt? After all, that's MY money they are using to fund these entitlement programs. Money I earned because I passed a random drug test.
That's what I was thinking. If you have to pass a drug to get a job, why should you not have to be tested while sitting on your ass with your hand out.
Because one is a private matter and the other is the government riding in on private lives AGAIN. I know what you are saying, and I share those thoughts, until I stop and understand what is really going on. No benefits will be stopped. That ain't gonna happen. Will we deny a child a glass of milk just because mommy smokes a little dope? Nope.
-
It will never fly. The ACLU will be all over this like a homeless guy on a half eaten big mac.......equal protection under the law?
The Equal Protections clause isn't applicable. The government can put any restrictions on its largess it wants to. There is already precedent in Section 8 and public housing -- convicted felons are not allowed to live there and if caught the whole family gets kicked out and/or the subsidy ends. It is also zero tolerance so there is no second chance.
-
The DUmmies love of the altered state aside, I am not a fan of drug testing.
It's an old expression, but a useful one:
"You take the king's coin, you do the king's bidding."
-
It will never fly. The ACLU will be all over this like a homeless guy on a half eaten big mac.......equal protection under the law?
The Equal Protections clause isn't applicable. The government can put any restrictions on its largess it wants to. There is already precedent in Section 8 and public housing -- convicted felons are not allowed to live there and if caught the whole family gets kicked out and/or the subsidy ends. It is also zero tolerance so there is no second chance.
Point taken but I still don't think the ACLU will let it alone,time will tell..... and guess who gets to pay for the drug tests? we do of course. What we really need is the death penalty for dealing drugs. It won't solve the entire problem right away but it will deal with the repeat offender issue.
-
^I think that if most employers require random drug testing, then why shouldn't the govt? After all, that's MY money they are using to fund these entitlement programs. Money I earned because I passed a random drug test.
That's what I was thinking. If you have to pass a drug to get a job, why should you not have to be tested while sitting on your ass with your hand out.
Oh hell yeah if we have to piss in a cup so should they. At least they aren't talking about the money from thsoe tests coming from the wellfare checks. Most employers around here make you shell out $25 for the test.