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

[Fair&Balanced]

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

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?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because they're taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

I don't like? So, you'd be OK taking in a friend in who is down on their luck, they contribute nothing, then every time they get a few bucks, they get drunk or high? How long would you allow that to continue?

Again, you have no evidence this is happening. If there is evidence that warrants a legitimate investigation, according to the rules of due process that protect all of us, go for it. Prosecute them, put them in jail and knock them off the welfare roles. Otherwise leave them alone.efra

As I've stated here previously, I'm fundamentally opposed to the welfare state. It creates dependancy that invites just the kind of abuse of individual rights you're advocating.

?

Of course we have AMPLE evidence that MANY people are defrauding the government in many ways in terms of welfare.

 

[Pogo]

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

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?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this with the public at large, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because the targets are people taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

"Fishing expedition" is exactly what it is. And it requires a bridge to its conclusion, a bridge that does not exist. The inability of the fishing expeditionists here to demonstrate such bridge just confirms that.

Oh look, there's a guy smoking a cigarette. Therefore we "know" he spent money on cigarettes. And the only place to buy cigarettes around here is the Quick Mart, so we "know" he bought them at Quick Mart. And Quick Mart just got robbed, so we "know" he did it. Lock 'im up.

I'm trying to be patient here, but you are patently stupid.

It's no more of a "fishing expedition" than being screened at the airport is, and much like being screened at the airport, you have signed away your right to privacy when you agreed to enter the airport/take the welfare. Are you aware, for example, that currently the government CAN view your banking records if you sign up for welfare? This is no different.

Ah. So now we've abandoned the fact that you cannot demonstrate how that conclusion works and you're on to "you have signed away your right to privacy".

Really? So the Gummint can, what, set a camera in your bedroom? Walk in when you're taking your morning constitutional? Take notes on your phone conversations? Watch you dress?

You lose.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this with the public at large, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because the targets are people taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

"Fishing expedition" is exactly what it is. And it requires a bridge to its conclusion, a bridge that does not exist. The inability of the fishing expeditionists here to demonstrate such bridge just confirms that.

Oh look, there's a guy smoking a cigarette. Therefore we "know" he spent money on cigarettes. And the only place to buy cigarettes around here is the Quick Mart, so we "know" he bought them at Quick Mart. And Quick Mart just got robbed, so we "know" he did it. Lock 'im up.

That's about the stupidest thing I have read today.

ose t

Thanks. That's what I was going for. Because it's the exact same logic.

That isn't any logic at all.

Seriously, are you okay with being such a dishonest person? No wonder we have the Presidential candidates we have if you represent the average voter

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this with the public at large, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because the targets are people taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

"Fishing expedition" is exactly what it is. And it requires a bridge to its conclusion, a bridge that does not exist. The inability of the fishing expeditionists here to demonstrate such bridge just confirms that.

Oh look, there's a guy smoking a cigarette. Therefore we "know" he spent money on cigarettes. And the only place to buy cigarettes around here is the Quick Mart, so we "know" he bought them at Quick Mart. And Quick Mart just got robbed, so we "know" he did it. Lock 'im up.

I'm trying to be patient here, but you are patently stupid.

It's no more of a "fishing expedition" than being screened at the airport is, and much like being screened at the airport, you have signed away your right to privacy when you agreed to enter the airport/take the welfare. Are you aware, for example, that currently the government CAN view your banking records if you sign up for welfare? This is no different.

Ah. So now we've abandoned the fact that you cannot demonstrate how that conclusion works and you're on to "you have signed away your right to privacy".

Really? So the Gummint can, what, set a camera in your bedroom? Walk in when you're taking your morning constitutional? Take notes on your phone conversations? Watch you dress?

You lose.

Unfortunately, I do lose, because stupid partisan hacks like yourself have taken over the discussion.

 

[Pogo]

Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this with the public at large, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because the targets are people taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

"Fishing expedition" is exactly what it is. And it requires a bridge to its conclusion, a bridge that does not exist. The inability of the fishing expeditionists here to demonstrate such bridge just confirms that.

Oh look, there's a guy smoking a cigarette. Therefore we "know" he spent money on cigarettes. And the only place to buy cigarettes around here is the Quick Mart, so we "know" he bought them at Quick Mart. And Quick Mart just got robbed, so we "know" he did it. Lock 'im up.

That's about the stupidest thing I have read today.

ose t

Thanks. That's what I was going for. Because it's the exact same logic.

That isn't any logic at all.

Seriously, are you okay with being such a dishonest person? No wonder we have the Presidential candidates we have if you represent the average voter

Go fuck yourself moron. The fact is I called out a post hoc fallacy, a conclusion that has no bridge to it, and you cannot prove otherwise. And there ain't a damn thing in the world you can do about that.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'd like to see them randomly select 7600 individuals NOT on welfare, screen out a small sample based on the same criteria they used to screen likely drug users out of the welfare group,

test them, and see what percentage test positive.

I believe the article had a link to the results of drug tests given to gainfully employed people, and IIRC the percentage of people testing positive was three times higher. And so much safer for the general public too.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this with the public at large, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because the targets are people taking advantage of a government service you don't like.

"Fishing expedition" is exactly what it is. And it requires a bridge to its conclusion, a bridge that does not exist. The inability of the fishing expeditionists here to demonstrate such bridge just confirms that.

Oh look, there's a guy smoking a cigarette. Therefore we "know" he spent money on cigarettes. And the only place to buy cigarettes around here is the Quick Mart, so we "know" he bought them at Quick Mart. And Quick Mart just got robbed, so we "know" he did it. Lock 'im up.

That's about the stupidest thing I have read today.

Thanks. That's what I was going for. Because it's the exact same logic.

 

[Dragonlady]

How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.

Sure there is...... Drug using parasites shouldnt det a nickel of public assistance...... SIMPLE

Yes, it's just much better to have them committing break and enter, muggings and armed robberies to support their habits.

 

[TooTall]

How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.

Yeah, It must be a scam from the evil drug testing industry. I hate those evil urinalysis cooperation's and their lobbyists. They're all behind this!

Hey, that was exactly the case when Rick Scott did it in FL. Seems he had a large interest in drug testing companies.

The company I worked for required a drug test to get hired and periodic random drug tests thereafter. When someone flunked the test they were given the choice of a attending a drug rehab program on their own time or quitting. It seemed fair to me since I wasn't interested in working around someone that was stoned.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.

Sure there is...... Drug using parasites shouldnt det a nickel of public assistance...... SIMPLE

Yes, it's just much better to have them committing break and enter, muggings and armed robberies to support their habits.

Wait, so it is better for taxpayers to finance drug habits?

 

[Dragonlady]

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?

Do you even read the thread before responding? I CLEARLY stated both that I differentiate between medical drugs and recreational drugs AND that I would support testing for nicotine and alcohol as well.

Your stupidity about not knowing if a transaction took place to obtain drugs is just that, stupidity.

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.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah, this is bullshit. This method has already been deemed unconstitutional.

Newsflash, Conservitards, you need probable cause of illegal activity to demand body fluids. You can't just go using a dragnet to test the entire population of welfare recipients.

I have a job in order to keep my job, I have to pass a drug test.

You are on welfare, in order to keep your welfare you need to pass a drug test.

Both are voluntary to receive a benefit.

 

[Pogo]

How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.

Yeah, It must be a scam from the evil drug testing industry. I hate those evil urinalysis cooperation's and their lobbyists. They're all behind this!

Hey, that was exactly the case when Rick Scott did it in FL. Seems he had a large interest in drug testing companies.

The company I worked for required a drug test to get hired and periodic random drug tests thereafter. When someone flunked the test they were given the choice of a attending a drug rehab program on their own time or quitting. It seemed fair to me since I wasn't interested in working around someone that was stoned.

The flaw in that, as was pointed out before, is that such a test does not tell who is "stoned". It tells at best who has X amount of level of Chemical Y in their body, which is not the same thing at all.

If such workplaces were actually interested in screening as such, they could run simple dexterity/reflex tests which could show if somebody's motor skills or alertness was insufficient for the job -- regardless whether that insufficiency was a result of a substance, lack of sleep, a creeping illness or injury, alcohol, mental preoccupation with something personal, etc etc.

But obviously that's not what they're screening for -- they're screening for evidence of private behaviour in the past.

When authority figures are screening for personal behaviour it should set off massive alarms.

 

[TooTall]

As far as the reasons for the 9/11 attacks was the infringement of holy land, in Saudi, occupied by the coalition forces, mainly the US during the Gulf war...

Where was the holy land that was occupied in Saudi Arabia?

 

[Londoner]

In a minimalist libertarian state, government would have no standing anywhere near an individual's right to use drugs or drink sugary soda.

But there is a powerful faction inside the Republican Party that wants to engineer humans as religious people who don't take drugs. They want to use big government to create an ideal self - morally and physically, as Jesus intended. It borders on the eugenics we saw in 30s Germany.

We know the Left uses government to engineer a particular kind of self, but in my lifetime the Right takes the cake RE big government overreach.

I remember the Reagan war on drugs. It was this massive, bloated bureaucracy that put blacks in cages (jail), while pumping Orwellian slogans into schools and TV programming: "you can't fly when your high".

Sorry Mr Reagan, we don't need government's help raising our children. American families can manage just fine without big brother moralizing us into perfection.

Wait 'till Ted Cruz takes office. He will use government to ram Christianity down the throats of free citizens. There will be a Jesus Litmus for all government services. He will double the law enforcement budget and surveillance powers of government so as to put more blacks in cages for smoking a harmless weed.

"Hi I'm from government and I'm here to help"

(The Republicans are coming back folks. You ain't seen nothing yet. Patriot Act III is going to destroy all Constitutional rights to privacy. Government is going to save all!)

 

[TooTall]

How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.

Yeah, It must be a scam from the evil drug testing industry. I hate those evil urinalysis cooperation's and their lobbyists. They're all behind this!

Hey, that was exactly the case when Rick Scott did it in FL. Seems he had a large interest in drug testing companies.

The company I worked for required a drug test to get hired and periodic random drug tests thereafter. When someone flunked the test they were given the choice of a attending a drug rehab program on their own time or quitting. It seemed fair to me since I wasn't interested in working around someone that was stoned.

The flaw in that, as was pointed out before, is that such a test does not tell who is "stoned". It tells at best who has X amount of level of Chemical Y in their body, which is not the same thing at all.

If such workplaces were actually interested in screening as such, they could run simple dexterity/reflex tests which could show if somebody's motor skills or alertness was insufficient for the job -- regardless whether that insufficiency was a result of a substance, lack of sleep, a creeping illness or injury, alcohol, mental preoccupation with something personal, etc etc.

But obviously that's not what they're screening for -- they're screening for evidence of private behaviour in the past.

When authority figures are screening for personal behaviour it should set off massive alarms.

In most cases, the personal behaviour you refer too was taking something that is against the law.

 

[Pogo]

How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.

Yeah, It must be a scam from the evil drug testing industry. I hate those evil urinalysis cooperation's and their lobbyists. They're all behind this!

Hey, that was exactly the case when Rick Scott did it in FL. Seems he had a large interest in drug testing companies.

The company I worked for required a drug test to get hired and periodic random drug tests thereafter. When someone flunked the test they were given the choice of a attending a drug rehab program on their own time or quitting. It seemed fair to me since I wasn't interested in working around someone that was stoned.

The flaw in that, as was pointed out before, is that such a test does not tell who is "stoned". It tells at best who has X amount of level of Chemical Y in their body, which is not the same thing at all.

If such workplaces were actually interested in screening as such, they could run simple dexterity/reflex tests which could show if somebody's motor skills or alertness was insufficient for the job -- regardless whether that insufficiency was a result of a substance, lack of sleep, a creeping illness or injury, alcohol, mental preoccupation with something personal, etc etc.

But obviously that's not what they're screening for -- they're screening for evidence of private behaviour in the past.

When authority figures are screening for personal behaviour it should set off massive alarms.

In most cases, the personal behaviour you refer too was taking something that is against the law.

So you agree they're screening for personal behavior. That's progress.

Whether the substance is against the law is irrelevant. Employers are not law enforcement -- and doing so based on circumstantial evidence is even shakier. Social welfare administrations, same thing.

Back to the original point -- screening for private personal behavior. You OK with the implications of that? What happens when an employer or a gummint agency starts screening for what books you read, what opinions you express, who you associate with and what you say to them? Hm?

Ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?

 

[TooTall]

Yeah, It must be a scam from the evil drug testing industry. I hate those evil urinalysis cooperation's and their lobbyists. They're all behind this!

Hey, that was exactly the case when Rick Scott did it in FL. Seems he had a large interest in drug testing companies.

The company I worked for required a drug test to get hired and periodic random drug tests thereafter. When someone flunked the test they were given the choice of a attending a drug rehab program on their own time or quitting. It seemed fair to me since I wasn't interested in working around someone that was stoned.

The flaw in that, as was pointed out before, is that such a test does not tell who is "stoned". It tells at best who has X amount of level of Chemical Y in their body, which is not the same thing at all.

If such workplaces were actually interested in screening as such, they could run simple dexterity/reflex tests which could show if somebody's motor skills or alertness was insufficient for the job -- regardless whether that insufficiency was a result of a substance, lack of sleep, a creeping illness or injury, alcohol, mental preoccupation with something personal, etc etc.

But obviously that's not what they're screening for -- they're screening for evidence of private behaviour in the past.

When authority figures are screening for personal behaviour it should set off massive alarms.

In most cases, the personal behaviour you refer too was taking something that is against the law.

So you agree they're screening for personal behavior. That's progress.

Whether the substance is against the law is irrelevant. Employers are not law enforcement -- and doing so based on circumstantial evidence is even shakier. Social welfare administrations, same thing.

Back to the original point -- screening for private personal behavior. You OK with that?
Ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?

If someone beaks the law by doing illegal drugs, social welfare is not going to have them busted. They should refer them to a free clinic to get drug rehab and tell them to come back when they are clean.

Where was the Fourth Amendment when I had to pass a drug test to get hired? I do not have a problem with someone being drug tested before they get a pay check and you do. Nobody made you apply for welfare and if you don't meet the requirements to get a check, too bad.

 

[Meathead]

Back to the original point -- screening for private personal behavior. You OK with the implications of that? What happens when an employer or a gummint agency starts screening for what books you read, what opinions you express, who you associate with and what you say to them? Hm?

Ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?

Whoa there Sparky! It's quite a jump from screening people getting free stuff for drugs than from someone who doesn't for reading books.

 

[Pogo]

Back to the original point -- screening for private personal behavior. You OK with the implications of that? What happens when an employer or a gummint agency starts screening for what books you read, what opinions you express, who you associate with and what you say to them? Hm?

Ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?

Whoa there Sparky! It's quite a jump from screening people getting free stuff for drugs than from someone who doesn't for reading books.

Is it now?

We've already established that they're screening for "approved" personal behaviour*. That ship has already sailed. Now it's just a matter of what kind of seedy ports it's gonna stop in.

* see post 396 above