Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong question.Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.
An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?
Correct question: why do you and most others on the right seek to compel conformity by increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty – if conservatives aren’t violating the 4th Amendment rights of public assistance applicants, they’re violating the equal protection rights of gay Americans, or the voting rights of African-Americans, or the privacy rights of women, or the due process rights of immigrants.
In these and other examples we see conservatives advocating for more government, more intrusive government, more government interfering in citizens’ personal lives.
The only logical inference is that this need by most on the right to compel conformity is consistent with the authoritarian nature of conservatism, and an unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and dissent, conjoined with errant conservative dogma and its wrongheaded notion that drug testing public assistance applicants will act as a ‘deterrent’ to them doing so, when in fact those who apply have a real need for assistance, will receive benefits for only a very short time, never to return.
Of course most on the right don’t care about these facts, seeking instead to propagate their myths and lies about public assistance for some perceived partisan gain.
No individual liberty is lost in the process. Individual liberty is being violated by taking from one individual to support another. Requiring a drug test is but a simple way to ensure that both interests are represented well and that the loss of liberty from one end is compensated by a good faith effort on the other. Make no mistake about it, the liberty interests isn't with the welfare recipient who benefits from the loss of individual liberty of another. By accepting the produce of the liberty of another he in turn should reciprocate in a like manner that benefits the person who's liberty was lost. It's a balancing of liberty, not a loss.
Whenever liberals advocate for destroying individual liberty you can always bet a conservative, if he can't get rid of the liberty sapping law, will attempt to balance the liberty interests.
Here's a poster who apparently gets paid for how many times he can work the word liberty into a post while utterly failing to comprehend it.
If we're back to the original topic, once again the concept shoots itself in its own foot with this non sequitur ass-umption that "If the state gives monetary benefits to person X, and X is found to have substance Y in his body, then person X must have purchased substance Y and must have done so with state benefits".
That conclusion has no bridge to it. It is inoperative. It's ass-umption. It is assuming facts which are not in evidence. It does not work. Period.
Your first point is garbage and I think you should read up on Madisonian theories of balancing liberty between two interests before going further. I could recommend a few books if you'd like on the subject of liberty and I apologize if I am so intellectually beyond you on the subject that you fail to comprehend. Shall I write it with a crayon for you?
Your second point fails to factor in employability, willingness to abide by work rules and the law, and the fact that money is fungible. If I have a limited amount of income and you give me money for food I have more money from that limited source for drugs. Particularly the limited amount I was spending on food is now available for drugs. Once again, Fungible. Why can't liberals understand finance and accounting?
Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.
An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?
Maybe it's just a bias in favor of personal freedom and privacy. But fuck that, right?
Anyway, whether business can, or should, drug test has nothing AT ALL to do with whether welfare recipients should be drug tested.
You give up a certain amount of those rights when you enter into an employment agreement.
I wouldn't say they give any rights at all. They can refuse to take the drug test.
It's well within the rights of a business to drug test their employees, with their consent, and to fire them if the refuse. I avoid those kinds of employers, but it's their call.
Well, lets just say that if you invoke your right to forgo the urinalysis you also forfeit the privilege of employment.
Correct.Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.
An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?
Maybe it's just a bias in favor of personal freedom and privacy. But fuck that, right?
Anyway, whether business can, or should, drug test has nothing AT ALL to do with whether welfare recipients should be drug tested.
Two separate issues, one having nothing to do with the other.
The right to privacy and other 4th Amendment protections concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between private persons and organizations, such as job applicants and employers.
The North Carolina measure was enacted in bad faith; the state has failed to establish a compelling governmental interest in infringing upon the 4th Amendment right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches.
There is no objective, documented evidence in support of the measure – indeed, similar measures have failed to realize a cost-savings for the state and have done nothing to deter or reduce drug use.
The measure seeks only to disadvantage those applying for public assistance, to embarrass them, to humiliate them, and the make them different from everyone else, predicated solely on an unwarranted hostility toward those applying for benefits.
So you believe that drug users need to be enabled?
I think they need to be housed, clothed and fed. I don't see that doing that is enabling them. I think it is very dangerous and expensive to do nothing.
You clearly do not understand what the word "enabling" means.
That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.
It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.
They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.
Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.
Which was exactly my point.
After awhile up goes up, must come down.
Your ignorance on drug use knows no bounds.
It's also a violation of a person's rights to be drug testing by an employer, unless there is a safety issue. The only thing a drug test will tell you is that someone has been exposed to a drug within X period of time - marijuana stays in the system and can be detected weeks after use although the high is long gone. It doesn't reveal the level of intoxication like a breathalizer, or how the the drug got there. If you went to a party where heavy marijuana use was going on, but you didn't participate, the second hand smoke will cause you to test positive.
Unless the employer has reason to believe that you are using drugs at work or while working, then he/she/it has no right to determine how you spend your time and money while not working.
You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.
People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.
Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.
I find it strange how both liberals and conservatives can express distrust in government, yet justify government intrusion at the drop of a hat!
There is something odd about drug testing welfare recipients. Especially in the case of dropping them from any assistance if they fail the test.
I wonder if the government will try this with all tax payers. All the government has to do is make an argument you have or about to receive something from the fed and wants to ensure you will not use it for drugs
I find it strange how both liberals and conservatives can express distrust in government, yet justify government intrusion at the drop of a hat!
There is something odd about drug testing welfare recipients. Especially in the case of dropping them from any assistance if they fail the test.
I wonder if the government will try this with all tax payers. All the government has to do is make an argument you have or about to receive something from the fed and wants to ensure you will not use it for drugs
That's my money. Don't like getting drug tested? Get off welfare and buy dope with your own money.
I find it strange how both liberals and conservatives can express distrust in government, yet justify government intrusion at the drop of a hat!
There is something odd about drug testing welfare recipients. Especially in the case of dropping them from any assistance if they fail the test.
I wonder if the government will try this with all tax payers. All the government has to do is make an argument you have or about to receive something from the fed and wants to ensure you will not use it for drugs
That's my money. Don't like getting drug tested? Get off welfare and buy dope with your own money.
No test exists that can prove they bought something with that money -- or bought it at all.
You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.
People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.
Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.
If they have money to buy dope, they don't need welfare.
You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.
People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.
Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.
If they have money to buy dope, they don't need welfare.
How do you know that those who tested positive bought the dope? How do you know that someone didn't pass them a joint somewhere?
You don't. A drug test tells you nothing about the origin of the drugs, whether welfare was used to purchase them, or even whether the person with the positive test had a drug problem.
I find it strange how both liberals and conservatives can express distrust in government, yet justify government intrusion at the drop of a hat!
There is something odd about drug testing welfare recipients. Especially in the case of dropping them from any assistance if they fail the test.
I wonder if the government will try this with all tax payers. All the government has to do is make an argument you have or about to receive something from the fed and wants to ensure you will not use it for drugs
That's my money. Don't like getting drug tested? Get off welfare and buy dope with your own money.
No test exists that can prove they bought something with that money -- or bought it at all.
They're supposed to be looking for a job. They'll never get a job if they're doping.
Don't like it? Get off welfare and dope wall they want.
You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.
People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.
Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.
If they have money to buy dope, they don't need welfare.
How do you know that those who tested positive bought the dope? How do you know that someone didn't pass them a joint somewhere?
You don't. A drug test tells you nothing about the origin of the drugs, whether welfare was used to purchase them, or even whether the person with the positive test had a drug problem.
I find it strange how both liberals and conservatives can express distrust in government, yet justify government intrusion at the drop of a hat!
There is something odd about drug testing welfare recipients. Especially in the case of dropping them from any assistance if they fail the test.
I wonder if the government will try this with all tax payers. All the government has to do is make an argument you have or about to receive something from the fed and wants to ensure you will not use it for drugs
That's my money. Don't like getting drug tested? Get off welfare and buy dope with your own money.
No test exists that can prove they bought something with that money -- or bought it at all.
They're supposed to be looking for a job. They'll never get a job if they're doping.
Don't like it? Get off welfare and dope wall they want.
--- And there it is again.... yet another admission that what's happening here is fascists bent on controlling people's private behaviour.
No different from having our phones tapped, our emails read, or our cars fixed with GPS devices to track where we are at all times. The State speaks and they fall all over themselves to be the first to say "yes Master, may I have another".
Freaking wimps.
I find it strange how both liberals and conservatives can express distrust in government, yet justify government intrusion at the drop of a hat!
There is something odd about drug testing welfare recipients. Especially in the case of dropping them from any assistance if they fail the test.
I wonder if the government will try this with all tax payers. All the government has to do is make an argument you have or about to receive something from the fed and wants to ensure you will not use it for drugs
That's my money. Don't like getting drug tested? Get off welfare and buy dope with your own money.
No test exists that can prove they bought something with that money -- or bought it at all.
They're supposed to be looking for a job. They'll never get a job if they're doping.
Don't like it? Get off welfare and dope wall they want.
--- And there it is again.... yet another admission that what's happening here is fascists bent on controlling people's private behaviour.
No different from having our phones tapped, our emails read, or our cars fixed with GPS devices to track where we are at all times. The State speaks and they fall all over themselves to be the first to say "yes Master, may I have another".
Freaking wimps.
I find it strange how both liberals and conservatives can express distrust in government, yet justify government intrusion at the drop of a hat!
There is something odd about drug testing welfare recipients. Especially in the case of dropping them from any assistance if they fail the test.
I wonder if the government will try this with all tax payers. All the government has to do is make an argument you have or about to receive something from the fed and wants to ensure you will not use it for drugs
That's my money. Don't like getting drug tested? Get off welfare and buy dope with your own money.
No test exists that can prove they bought something with that money -- or bought it at all.
They're supposed to be looking for a job. They'll never get a job if they're doping.
Don't like it? Get off welfare and dope wall they want.
--- And there it is again.... yet another admission that what's happening here is fascists bent on controlling people's private behaviour.
No different from having our phones tapped, our emails read, or our cars fixed with GPS devices to track where we are at all times. The State speaks and they fall all over themselves to be the first to say "yes Master, may I have another".
Freaking wimps.
Anyone receiving my money is accountable for that money. Since I'm the one paying the money, I'm the customer and I demand that my money isn't wasted.
Don't like it? Get off welfare.
You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.
People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.
Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.
If they have money to buy dope, they don't need welfare.
How do you know that those who tested positive bought the dope? How do you know that someone didn't pass them a joint somewhere?
You don't. A drug test tells you nothing about the origin of the drugs, whether welfare was used to purchase them, or even whether the person with the positive test had a drug problem.
They all did free dope? Doubt it!...lol
Cough up receipts that conftirm that 100% Of their welfare check was spent according to the rules. Of there's a difference, that amount will be subtracted from next month's check.
Don't like it? Get off welfare and stop wasting my money.
