rotard wrote:Mitchell wrote: Yeah, because the poor are pretty much animals, right? Might as well treat them as such!Umm...have you ever taken a serious drug test? They watch you take your junk out and pee in the cup.
I once got called while on leave to go do a shift as the meat gazer. I was all "LOL not in the same state."
Dodged that bullet.
in my mind, it is a combination of several factors that make me say that even if it costs a bit of money, there are worse ways to spend it.
1) yes, if I have go take a piss test to get a job, so i can pay into the system, then why shouldn't someone asking to get paid out of that system have to go through at least this small level of pre-qualification.
2) if you have money to spend on drugs, then maybe you don't need so much help after all? sorry, if you need help so bad you have to come to the government, then you don't need a toke to get to sleep in the evening, no excuses.
3) courtesy of bluej: if you can't pass a piss test, that would preclude you from being able to get most jobs, why should you be allowed to continue on a path that most likely leads to you staying on welfare rather than not?
Would it be wrong to let people get part of their welfare payment in weed? Purely medicinal, of course.
Otto Maddox wrote: Would it be wrong to let people get part of their welfare payment in weed? Purely medicinal, of course.
If I can get the same "medicine" whilst having a job, why not? 
Oh and to your earlier question, I would pass. But mainly because the new employer constantly threatens us with randoms, even though they haven't done one in the 8 months I've been here.
Not worth the risk to lose a good job.
yamaha wrote: Its the same as everything else in this nation......if you don't like the consequenses, DON"T DO IT.....That is all this conversation is, not about legalizing whatever or arguements for that.
If you had attempted to understand what I was saying you might have gathered that my trouble with the situation is not with the fact that consequences exist, but that they only apply to certain people. You think it's fine and dandy to require people to whip out their business in front of a government official to take advantage of public services? Well let's start requiring it at the DMV too if it's such a great idea. You think that one would ever get off the ground? The only reason this law came to be is that the poor have been demonized and dehumanized, and the people writing and voting for such things didn't consider the law as if it's something that could apply to themselves or their family.
I don't have a problem with the idea behind the FL law (although the gov getting a cut of the proceeds is BS), but it should be done fairly. All elected officials and government workers should be tested as well. All of them. Teachers, Cops, Judges. Once on application and random or annual thereafter.
Volksrodden wrote: Odds are the people doing the testing where not using there own piss. sad thing is that it is real easy to use some else piss for those test. if the person conducting the test does not do this right, the test subject can easily pass with using some one else piss.
:sarcasm: Yes, because everyone on welfare absolutely has to be using drugs. /:sarcasm:
In reply to SupraWes:
Yeah I was definitely getting the vibe from some of the comments that the majority of people who collect welfare are on drugs. And that people on welfare are looked down upon
fritzsch wrote: In reply to SupraWes: Yeah I was definitely getting the vibe from some of the comments that the majority of people who collect welfare are on drugs. And that people on welfare are looked down upon
i really think that people are missing the main thrust of the law, which is "if you have money to buy drugs, then you don't need help from the government" just like the government got to veto exec salary increases for those companies that have not yet paid back their TARP money. you want help, you have to agree to do things that ensure that the money is well spent on you.
I like
Yeah but it also shuns addicts, who need help, though not a welfare check, and victimizes kids whose parents test positive. spending $5 a week on weed also does not exclude one from needing help with groceries. Hell, cigarettes aren't good and costs >$5 a pack, Im sure some money is being spent on that.
Also it strips the dignity from the majority who aren't taking drugs.
fritzsch wrote: Also it strips the dignity from the majority who aren't taking drugs.
How so? Am I stripped of my dignity when I apply for a job and have to take a drug test to get it?
fritzsch wrote: Yeah but it also shuns addicts, who need help, though not a welfare check, and victimizes kids whose parents test positive. spending $5 a week on weed also does not exclude one from needing help with groceries. Hell, cigarettes aren't good and costs >$5 a pack, Im sure some money is being spent on that.
Addicts can get free help if they know where to look. They probably don't, but they probably don't want help either. I think in some states, drug addiction is actually considered a disability (I might be pulling this out of my ass, but I don't think I am).
And yes, spending $5 a week on weed should not exclude one from needing help on groceries. But if you need help on groceries, you had better not be spending $5 a week on weed. I haven't been paid since January; my job owes me over $700. I am down to almost no money. So guess what, I didn't buy any beer at the grocery store this week because I spent it instead on food.
And the difference with cigarettes is that it is not illegal, and it can't get me fired from my job or restrain me from getting a job. Right or wrong, it is just the way it is. I personally think that they should be illegal if marijuana is, but once again, like the marijuana argument, it is a whole nother' can of worms that is irrelevant to this discussion.
Keep government out of MY life, but jam it waaaaayyyy into "those people's" lives. Gonna work out great until you realize that, little by little, you became those people.
Probably should drug test anyone on Social Security. And Medicaid. And, really, just for safety sake, anyone who is a licensed driver. What? How can you argue that's a bad idea? All public school students too - that goes without saying. Ever use a public library? All police and fire-fighters too. Every elected official.
Really, I just don't support anything that takes away freedom for any American citizen. It seems to me a lot of people are quick to get bent out of shape about freedom and government intrusion on everything except the issues where it is actually intrusive. I still don't understand why there aren't riots in the streets of every major city over speed traps and absurdly low speed limits in place simply to generate tax revenue.
mtn wrote:fritzsch wrote: Also it strips the dignity from the majority who aren't taking drugs.How so? Am I stripped of my dignity when I apply for a job and have to take a drug test to get it?
Yes.
And if you think the politicians benefiting from intrusive laws stops here, you're mistaken. Look who wrote the AZ immigration law. Government is supposed to protect us from private industry, not work in collusion with it. You afraid of letting the government in your life? You just might have your eye on the wrong devil.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Keep government out of *MY* life, but jam it waaaaayyyy into "those people's" lives. Gonna work out great until you realize that, little by little, you became those people. Probably should drug test anyone on Social Security. And Medicaid. And, really, just for safety sake, anyone who is a licensed driver. What? How can you argue that's a bad idea? All public school students too - that goes without saying. Ever use a public library? All police and fire-fighters too. Every elected official. Really, I just don't support anything that takes away freedom for any American citizen. It seems to me a lot of people are quick to get bent out of shape about freedom and government intrusion on everything except the issues where it is actually intrusive. I still don't understand why there aren't riots in the streets of every major city over speed traps and absurdly low speed limits in place simply to generate tax revenue.
so what you're saying is i can go down and get a free check from the government, all i have to do is piss in a cup, regardless of whether i need it or not? where do i sign up?
ThePhranc wrote: If I have to take one to get the job that pays for welfare they should have to take one to get my confiscated money.
You're right. You shouldn't have to take one either.
Strizzo wrote: so what you're saying is i can go down and get a free check from the government, all i have to do is piss in a cup, regardless of whether i need it or not? where do i sign up?
Uh, no. Where did I say that?
fast_eddie_72 wrote:Strizzo wrote: so what you're saying is i can go down and get a free check from the government, all i have to do is piss in a cup, regardless of whether i need it or not? where do i sign up?Uh, no. Where did I say that?
well, public schools are available to everyone, not just the people who can't afford private school, no? likening welfare to public schools is like saying anyone can get a welfare check.
Strizzo wrote:fast_eddie_72 wrote:well, public schools are available to everyone, not just the people who can't afford private school, no? likening welfare to public schools is like saying anyone can get a welfare check.Strizzo wrote: so what you're saying is i can go down and get a free check from the government, all i have to do is piss in a cup, regardless of whether i need it or not? where do i sign up?Uh, no. Where did I say that?
You are missing the point. Badly. And, really, you are missing it by such a huge degree that there is likely nothing I could say to change your mind. So, have a nice day.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Probably should drug test anyone on Social Security.
If you posit that SS ISN'T a Ponzi scheme and that the person has been paying into the system to receive that check, then no, no drug test needed. You've already paid.
Oddly enough, I find it hard to believe that you guys care enough about what other people do to even comment here. I feel that I've lost a portion of my life to this thread.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Really, I just don't support anything that takes away freedom for any American citizen. It seems to me a lot of people are quick to get bent out of shape about freedom and government intrusion on everything except the issues where it is actually intrusive.
Ah, I see. So this is the point and the specific examples are just there to illustrate the wide array of people who have contact with the government in some form. So, if I were to attack your argument using any of the specific examples, I really would be making your point for you.
For example, just as many feel that this group is being singled out and linked to something that has no intrinsic connection to the service being provided, there are many other services that other groups take advantage of. And if this service could be linked to drug use (or some other activity that may even be legal- I mean, should habitual drinkers be allowed to drive at all?) then they too could be singled out. Over time, step by step, if I understand what you’re saying, so many groups could be included that almost no one would escape scrutiny.
So, just to be clear, really you’re not saying any of the groups you cite should be drug tested at all. In fact, you’re saying that they shouldn’t. Ah. And if I were to argue that they shouldn’t either, that would, again, make your point for you. I think I get it now.
I have to say, that’s an eloquent argument, but will likely be lost on many. Or even more likely, many won’t even make any effort to understand your point because they’re more interested in being “right” than engaging in any kind of thought exercise. They will simply look for some ostensibly logical reason why you’re wrong, missing the actual point all together. Which, let’s face it, is why these arguments are pointless and why it’s so easy for politicians to set an agenda for us.
You'll need to log in to post.
