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

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

Again, and this is something like the tenth time this has been pointed out to the slow --- there is no evidence that "money" is involved at all. And there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

Are you claiming they're all sucking ducks for the dope?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

"I doubt it" is not an argument.
You lose.

Prove it. Let's see a link supporting your argument. Drugs aren't free.

 

[Pogo]

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.

"I doubt it" is not an argument.
You lose.

Prove it. Let's see a link supporting your argument. Drugs aren't free.

I haven't made the claim of a money chain. *YOU* have. So YOU prove it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Again, and this is something like the tenth time this has been pointed out to the slow --- there is no evidence that "money" is involved at all. And there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

Are you claiming they're all sucking ducks for the dope?

That would be one way.

Wouldn't be the first thing I'd think of but --- that's me.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

"I doubt it" is not an argument.
You lose.

Prove it. Let's see a link supporting your argument. Drugs aren't free.

I haven't made the claim of a money chain. *YOU* have. So YOU prove it.

You claimed the drugs weren't purchased. The ball's in your court.

I say cut'em off.

 

[Pogo]

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.

"I doubt it" is not an argument.
You lose.

Prove it. Let's see a link supporting your argument. Drugs aren't free.

I haven't made the claim of a money chain. *YOU* have. So YOU prove it.

You claimed the drugs weren't purchased. The ball's in your court.

I say cut'em off.

You're completely illiterate huh?

I said you can't PROVE they were purchased. And you can't.

Go ahead.... prove me wrong.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

"I doubt it" is not an argument.
You lose.

Prove it. Let's see a link supporting your argument. Drugs aren't free.

I haven't made the claim of a money chain. *YOU* have. So YOU prove it.

You claimed the drugs weren't purchased. The ball's in your court.

I say cut'em off.

You're completely illiterate huh?

I said you can't PROVE they were purchased. And you can't.

Go ahead.... prove me wrong.

You challenged me. You cough it up. That's how it works.

I'm already convinced they're spending my money on dope.

 

[Pogo]

"I doubt it" is not an argument.
You lose.

Prove it. Let's see a link supporting your argument. Drugs aren't free.

I haven't made the claim of a money chain. *YOU* have. So YOU prove it.

You claimed the drugs weren't purchased. The ball's in your court.

I say cut'em off.

You're completely illiterate huh?

I said you can't PROVE they were purchased. And you can't.

Go ahead.... prove me wrong.

You challenged me. You cough it up. That's how it works.

I'm already convinced they're spending my money on dope.

What you're "convinced" about don't mean diddly since you're illiterate.

The burden of proof is yours. You claim to know something you cannot possibly know, and I demand proof. You can't do that. And I already know you can't do that, which is why I issue the challenge you can't handle.

A substance test tells you that a substance is present.
That's IT. PERIOD.
Doesn't tell you how it got there, when it got there, where it came from TO get there, or how it was arranged to get there.

Prove me wrong.

I'm still waiting.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Yes our overpaid do nothing welfare queen politicians sucking up our tax money should all be drug tested. I suggest a hair follicle test that goes back in time farther than a piss test. I had to submit to one and so should they.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

Again, and this is something like the tenth time this has been pointed out to the slow --- there is no evidence that "money" is involved at all. And there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

Are you claiming they're all sucking ducks for the dope?

I am having a hard time visualizing this......

 

[OldLady]

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?

Wrong question.

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?

This is the same crapola I get every time I point out this steely logic --- meltdowns into churlish ad hominem.

Once again, the presence of a substance --- ANY substance --- in the bodily fluids of a human being DOES NOT and CAN NOT automatically mean that therefore money changed hands as a condition of it being there.

Prove me wrong or STFU.

Pogo, I've got no issue with your basic premise, but we don't pick our drugs from an opiate tree. Money changes hands, as well as an active barter system including dealing and prostitution. Even if you weren't born poor, after a few years of active addiction, most people will be broke and will start looking for ways to survive, including welfare benefits if they can get them. It is quite true that what I did last night at a party doesn't necessarily affect my performance today, but when it comes to how addicts on welfare spend their money--we are enabling them to continue on. I don't know if that is a good thing or not, but based on my past experience, there is basically no practical way to stop it. What we should do, if anyone cared, is try to address the drug problem head on.

 

[OldLady]

Based on the arguments I am reading here, anyone who uses tobacco should be denied food stamps, section 8 housing, etc., since the money being spent on his family's food and shelter is obviously going toward enabling his tobacco addiction instead. In fact, if it is found that he went to a movie, had a beer in a bar, went to a professional baseball game, or bought a candy bar, he is frivolously wasting public money, and his kids should be denied food and shelter assistance.

Don't laugh. I read several editorials recently saying POOR PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUY LOTTO TICKETS. The busybodies who need to poke their nose into everyone's business are not letting any grass grow under their feet.

 

[Pogo]

Wrong question.

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?

This is the same crapola I get every time I point out this steely logic --- meltdowns into churlish ad hominem.

Once again, the presence of a substance --- ANY substance --- in the bodily fluids of a human being DOES NOT and CAN NOT automatically mean that therefore money changed hands as a condition of it being there.

Prove me wrong or STFU.

Pogo, I've got no issue with your basic premise, but we don't pick our drugs from an opiate tree. Money changes hands, as well as an active barter system including dealing and prostitution. Even if you weren't born poor, after a few years of active addiction, most people will be broke and will start looking for ways to survive, including welfare benefits if they can get them. It is quite true that what I did last night at a party doesn't necessarily affect my performance today, but when it comes to how addicts on welfare spend their money--we are enabling them to continue on. I don't know if that is a good thing or not, but based on my past experience, there is basically no practical way to stop it. What we should do, if anyone cared, is try to address the drug problem head on.

Drug problems, addiction problems, social problems in general certainly should be addressed. That's why this law is bullshit; it pretends to do that but falls apart under the lightest scrutiny.

It doesn't even matter what the "general practice" of acquiring a drug is. The issue here is that Joe Blow gets forced to take a test that reveals the presence of some substance. A single instance. That tells absolutely nothing about the circumstances under which he got that substance. Therefore it's way too far a leap to conclude, "well then he must have spent money, and it must have been our money" because you have no such evidence. We cannot make legal decisions based on something we think "probably happened". Can't be done. "Drugs", alcohol and tobacco are frequently shared with no money changing hands. For that matter so is food.

What's also making this murkier is, as pointed out at the beginning, no one including the OP has defined what "drugs" means. If cannabis is included in "drugs", as it often is even though it's not a drug, that can show up as long as a month later. Two points about that. One, the question of whether the joint from three weeks ago affects performance today is part of the drug-testing-in-the-workplace tangent, not the original topic, and that's been addressed separately. And two, you're going into the question of "addiction", which is not AT ALL the same thing as some substance being present. This screening has nothing to do with "addiction". There isn't a test for that.

Given what the test reveals and what it does not reveal, we've already established that the purpose of these policies, whether applied to welfare or employment, has nothing to do with either controlling benefit money or controlling workplace safety --- it has to do with controlling private behavior and keeping a servile population. If they were about solving those problems, they would tackle them directly. But they don't ---- they dig into private information to find some clue that they can then go, "well, then that must mean.....". It requires a logical leap. It's the old American tradition of addressing the symptom and pretending you addressed the root cause.

 

[Papageorgio]

Other than pot, drugs will leave your system in 36 hours. You go to apply for welfare. They set up an appointment. You can't stay of the crap for 36 hours? You got a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Careful

The government can make this argument with any of 'its' funds it doles out. Like tax refunds and Social Security.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

"I doubt it" is not an argument.
You lose.

Prove it. Let's see a link supporting your argument. Drugs aren't free.

I haven't made the claim of a money chain. *YOU* have. So YOU prove it.

You claimed the drugs weren't purchased. The ball's in your court.

I say cut'em off.

I think he means "purchased by the person who fail the drug test" as in a buddy may have shared the dope with the test subject.
In other words, somebody else could have bought the drugs and shared it with the test subject.

There are several ways to obtain drugs, buying is just one way.

 

[Pogo]

Other than pot, drugs will leave your system in 36 hours. You go to apply for welfare. They set up an appointment. You can't stay of the crap for 36 hours? You got a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what about the exception you just stated in your first three words? The OP article never did define what it means by the term "drugs".

Now it gets even murkier. You want the State to regulate personal behavior based on the presence of a substance which could have got there weeks ago, by any number of means that may or may not have included a cash transaction. And you think that's good law.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Time out.....Ok. I think you miss the point.
Illegal drugs are expensive. If a person has the means to pay for their bad habits then they can obviously get by without OUR money.
You must know nice people.
if one third of those tested are junkies, then they do not deserve to be sucking off the taxpayer tit.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Based on the arguments I am reading here, anyone who uses tobacco should be denied food stamps, section 8 housing, etc., since the money being spent on his family's food and shelter is obviously going toward enabling his tobacco addiction instead. In fact, if it is found that he went to a movie, had a beer in a bar, went to a professional baseball game, or bought a candy bar, he is frivolously wasting public money, and his kids should be denied food and shelter assistance.

Don't laugh. I read several editorials recently saying POOR PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUY LOTTO TICKETS. The busybodies who need to poke their nose into everyone's business are not letting any grass grow under their feet.

Not with my money, no. Welfarre is for necessities, not luxuries.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.

Who's the math genius here?

The number should be ZERO....THAT is the point of drug testing. Illegal drugs are illegal.
One does not get to take the taxpayers money and break the law.