toldailytopic: What do you think of states considering drug testing before receiving

[PureX]

Where does it end? Should we send in the drones to wipe out the homeless and unemployed?

The amazing thing is that to hear it from the republican party, it must have been the poor, the old, and the sick that started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing us billions and billions of dollars, and who cooked up the scheme to sell bad debts as phony assets to Wall Street banks and to European countries crashing the world economy and costing many of us our homes, and who gave billions and billions more dollars to the Wall Street banks and drove the national debt into the stratosphere. Because apparently the national debt is the single and sole fault of all those lazy, greedy poor, old, and sick people, and now they MUST be made to PAY FOR IT ALL!

 

[Sherman]

The T heology Online.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 13th, 2012 07:43 AM

toldailytopic: What do you think of states consideri ng drug testing before receiving government assistance?

I am all for drug testing in this case. Far too many dopers are milking the public larder to feed their habit.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's great for catching pot smokers, but most hard drugs don't stick around the system very long at all. It's a decent deterrent but it certainly ain't free and it's (to be frank) easy to pass even if you smoke every day.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yes. Far too many dopers are milking the public larder to feed their habit.

Did you know you can buy liquor with an unemployment card? I went out with a girl who would do that once. I always told her not too, relationship didn't last that long anyway

 

[PureX]

Did you know you can buy liquor with an unemployment card? I went out with a girl who would do that once. I always told her not too, relationship didn't last that long anyway

Unemployment compensation comes from a fund that we pay into. In fact, we have to have worked and paid into it to receive it when we're unemployed. So it's basically our own money. Same with social security. What we do with our own money is our own business, isn't it?

 

[Eeset]

The amazing thing is that to hear it from the republican party, it must have been the poor, the old, and the sick that started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing us billions and billions of dollars, and who cooked up the scheme to sell bad debts as phony assets to Wall Street banks and to European countries crashing the world economy and costing many of us our homes, and who gave billions and billions more dollars to the Wall Street banks and drove the national debt into the stratosphere. Because apparently the national debt is the single and sole fault of all those lazy, greedy poor, old, and sick people, and now they MUST be made to PAY FOR IT ALL!

Yes. And if they won't cough up what they do not have (money) then mow them down. They are a pestilence.

 

[PureX]

I am all for drug testing in this case. Far too many dopers are milking the public larder to feed their habit.

How do you know this?

 

[PyramidHead]

Unemployment compensation comes from a fund that we pay into. In fact, we have to have worked and paid into it to receive it when we're unemployed. So it's basically our own money. Same with social security. What we do with our own money is our own business, isn't it?

I don't disagree. My point was that her fear of 'dopers' (doesn't mean the same thing everywhere) 'leeching off the system' or whatever was already being accomplished by people struggling with alcoholism. The girl I went out with had that demon bad, so I tried to dissuade her from drinking in general

 

[Delmar]

The amazing thing is that to hear it from the republican party, it must have been the poor, the old, and the sick that started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing us billions and billions of dollars, and who cooked up the scheme to sell bad debts as phony assets to Wall Street banks and to European countries crashing the world economy and costing many of us our homes, and who gave billions and billions more dollars to the Wall Street banks and drove the national debt into the stratosphere. Because apparently the national debt is the single and sole fault of all those lazy, greedy poor, old, and sick people, and now they MUST be made to PAY FOR IT ALL!

Yup! I'm pretty sure I heard Karl Rove say all that on Hanity!

 

[PureX]

I don't disagree. My point was that her fear of 'dopers' (doesn't mean the same thing everywhere) 'leeching off the system' or whatever was already being accomplished by people struggling with alcoholism. The girl I went out with had that demon bad, so I tried to dissuade her from drinking in general

Addiction is as old as humanity. This is all just more political chicanery.

 

[PyramidHead]

Addiction is as old as humanity. This is all just more political chicanery.

Well yeah, but things like methamphetamine and freebased cocaine and research chemicals like bathsalts, JWH, and the 2C-x and DOx series and krokodil over in Russia are all new. You wont catch them in a piss test, I guess that's my point. Piss tests pretty much only catch THC, since it's fat soluble. I'm not saying people don't have the right to have whatever addictions they choose, I'm saying piss tests don't even catch what people think they do. But they do cost a lot of moneyyy

 

[PureX]

Well yeah, but things like methamphetamine and freebased cocaine and research chemicals like bathsalts, JWH, and the 2C-x and DOx series and krokodil over in Russia are all new. You wont catch them in a piss test, I guess that's my point. Piss tests pretty much only catch THC, since it's fat soluble. I'm not saying people don't have the right to have whatever addictions they choose, I'm saying piss tests don't even catch what people think they do. But they do cost a lot of moneyyy

If they have to blow more money on something, I wish they'd focus on recovery instead of punishment. All punishment does is teach the addict how to become a criminal. But the republican "base" likes the whole punishment thing. That's a big deal for them. And republican politicians like pushing the idea that public aid recipients are all drug addicts and drunks and criminals, because they want to cut off public aid all together, and they can't do it if we realize that most of the people on public aid are old, poor, disabled and unemployable.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 13th, 2012 07:43 AM

toldailytopic: What do you think of states considering drug testing before receiving government assistance?

I agree with it, provide they also have a way to see that children of those people who depend on it, still get fed. The kids cant help it if their parent(s) are losers.

 

[WandererInFog]

toldailytopic: What do you think of states considering drug testing before receiving government assistance?

Well, first it depends on the benefit. If it's a benefit the person has payed for, directly or indirectly, such as social security, medicare, or the first 26 weeks of unemployment, then the government has no business involving themselves in a person's private life.

Assuming though that we're instead talking about a benefit where the person is benefiting at the direct expense of the taxpayer, such as TANF, Medicaid, or Food Stamps, then there could be a place for testing. However, if someone tests positive, it makes far more sense to require that they enter treatment than simply cutting them off outright, and only losing the benefit if they fail to enter treatment or continue to fail drug tests.

 

[drbrumley]

It is not the government's place to assist anyone. If the government quits stealing, I would venture to say they would have no money to give. Problem solved.

 

[Lighthouse]

Unemployment compensation comes from a fund that we pay into. In fact, we have to have worked and paid into it to receive it when we're unemployed. So it's basically our own money. Same with social security. What we do with our own money is our own business, isn't it?

I thought social security was given from what the people working now are putting into it. I have a friend on disability who receives it and has had only a few jobs and never stayed at them for more than two moths at the most.

It is not the government's place to assist anyone. If the government quits stealing, I would venture to say they would have no money to give. Problem solved.

Amen!

 

[Granite]

It is not the government's place to assist anyone. If the government quits stealing, I would venture to say they would have no money to give. Problem solved.

So what's the alternative? Pure private sector? Where or when has that ever worked?

 

[kmoney]

I believe that is the way it used to be handled. (I am subject to correction on this) But, it was considered demeaning to the recipients for a variety of reasons.
And the recipients who are using the money to meet the needs of their families might consider it demeaning.
Drug testing could be applied across the board and discreetly.

Taking government aid needs to be demeaning.

 

[kmoney]

Where I live kmoney, things are taken care of in that way. Rental assistance is paid to the landlord directly, food stamps comes on a card that is only usable in certain establishments and etc etc. I think the only thing that isn't is unemployment or social security checks, stuff like that. The problem with some things like food stamps though, is people are getting drugs by buying food for the dealer. it's all the same because the dealer doesn't have to buy their own food. I know people who will trade half of their food stamp allotment to get pills or cocaine.

It's rare though, it just isn't reality that drug use is as rampant as some want us to think. So if less than 20% of people getting benefits actually use them to get drugs, is it worth the cost to us to test everyone to catch them?

I don't know how it is in PA right now but I do remember when I worked for a grocery store, people had a debit card and could only buy certain things with it. Like what you say.

And you bring up a good point about using food for drugs, etc. There will always be a way around it. Ways to abuse the system. But I prefer that to just handing out straight cash.


But I agree with you that we should try to determine how significant the issue is before we spend time and effort on fixing it.

 

[kmoney]

Well, first it depends on the benefit. If it's a benefit the person has payed for, directly or indirectly, such as social security, medicare, or the first 26 weeks of unemployment, then the government has no business involving themselves in a person's private life.

Assuming though that we're instead talking about a benefit where the person is benefiting at the direct expense of the taxpayer, such as TANF, Medicaid, or Food Stamps, then there could be a place for testing. However, if someone tests positive, it makes far more sense to require that they enter treatment than simply cutting them off outright, and only losing the benefit if they fail to enter treatment or continue to fail drug tests.

Good distinction between what type of aid it is.