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

[dblack]

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 like this part: "Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it."
The purpose of welfare is to help get people back on their feet. Not to simply subsidize them for sitting on their asses. Doing drugs isn't exactly helpful to the formers ends. 1/3rd of those tested in NC were found to have done drugs. We shouldn't invest in future of those who refuse to invest in their own future. You can't get a job if you fail a drug test. You shouldn't get welfare if you fail a drug test.

Shouldn't anyone who gets ANY form of government assistance be drug tested then?

Government subsidized loans, farm subsidies, etc etc.

Works for me.

I'm sure it does. But the fascists haven't taken over yet.

 

[Moonglow]

As long as leaders do not have to take drugs test, then no one should...

 

[Papageorgio]

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 like this part: "Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it."
The purpose of welfare is to help get people back on their feet. Not to simply subsidize them for sitting on their asses. Doing drugs isn't exactly helpful to the formers ends. 1/3rd of those tested in NC were found to have done drugs. We shouldn't invest in future of those who refuse to invest in their own future. You can't get a job if you fail a drug test. You shouldn't get welfare if you fail a drug test.

Shouldn't anyone who gets ANY form of government assistance be drug tested then?

Government subsidized loans, farm subsidies, etc etc.

Works for me.

I'm sure it does. But the fascists haven't taken over yet.

The government has no business subsidizing corporations, farms or loan money.

Drug test or not, we don't need to waste the taxpayers money.

 

[dblack]

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 like this part: "Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it."
The purpose of welfare is to help get people back on their feet. Not to simply subsidize them for sitting on their asses. Doing drugs isn't exactly helpful to the formers ends. 1/3rd of those tested in NC were found to have done drugs. We shouldn't invest in future of those who refuse to invest in their own future. You can't get a job if you fail a drug test. You shouldn't get welfare if you fail a drug test.

Shouldn't anyone who gets ANY form of government assistance be drug tested then?

Government subsidized loans, farm subsidies, etc etc.

Works for me.

I'm sure it does. But the fascists haven't taken over yet.

The government has no business subsidizing corporations, farms or loan money.

Drug test or not, we don't need to waste the taxpayers money.

Agreed. But two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Papageorgio]

As long as leaders do not have to take drugs test, then no one should...

I'm all for Congress and the President taking drug tests. If they test positive, can them.

 

[Papageorgio]

I like this part: "Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it."
The purpose of welfare is to help get people back on their feet. Not to simply subsidize them for sitting on their asses. Doing drugs isn't exactly helpful to the formers ends. 1/3rd of those tested in NC were found to have done drugs. We shouldn't invest in future of those who refuse to invest in their own future. You can't get a job if you fail a drug test. You shouldn't get welfare if you fail a drug test.

Shouldn't anyone who gets ANY form of government assistance be drug tested then?

Government subsidized loans, farm subsidies, etc etc.

Works for me.

I'm sure it does. But the fascists haven't taken over yet.

The government has no business subsidizing corporations, farms or loan money.

Drug test or not, we don't need to waste the taxpayers money.

Agreed. But two wrongs don't make a right.

What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?

Making people get help from their destructive lives?

 

[dblack]

Shouldn't anyone who gets ANY form of government assistance be drug tested then?

Government subsidized loans, farm subsidies, etc etc.

Works for me.

I'm sure it does. But the fascists haven't taken over yet.

The government has no business subsidizing corporations, farms or loan money.

Drug test or not, we don't need to waste the taxpayers money.

Agreed. But two wrongs don't make a right.

What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?

Making people get help from their destructive lives?

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

 

[Papageorgio]

Works for me.

I'm sure it does. But the fascists haven't taken over yet.

The government has no business subsidizing corporations, farms or loan money.

Drug test or not, we don't need to waste the taxpayers money.

Agreed. But two wrongs don't make a right.

What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?

Making people get help from their destructive lives?

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.

No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.

 

[dblack]

I'm sure it does. But the fascists haven't taken over yet.

The government has no business subsidizing corporations, farms or loan money.

Drug test or not, we don't need to waste the taxpayers money.

Agreed. But two wrongs don't make a right.

What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?

Making people get help from their destructive lives?

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance.

Says you. The entire debate here is whether anyone should have to give up their rights in exchange for utilizing government service. Some of us are less eager to go down that path.

 

[Papageorgio]

The government has no business subsidizing corporations, farms or loan money.

Drug test or not, we don't need to waste the taxpayers money.

Agreed. But two wrongs don't make a right.

What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?

Making people get help from their destructive lives?

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance.

Says you. The entire debate here is whether anyone should have to give up their rights in exchange for utilizing government service. Some of us are less eager to go down that path.

Says you. I disagree with you. You have said nothing that sways me. Practicing an illegal activity then expecting government to help you continue down that path is wrong. The government is not in the business of enabling illegal drug activity and ruining families.

 

[dblack]

Agreed. But two wrongs don't make a right.

What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?

Making people get help from their destructive lives?

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance.

Says you. The entire debate here is whether anyone should have to give up their rights in exchange for utilizing government service. Some of us are less eager to go down that path.

Says you. I disagree with you. You have said nothing that sways me. Practicing an illegal activity then expecting government to help you continue down that path is wrong. The government is not in the business of enabling illegal drug activity and ruining families.

I can only appeal to a genuine respect for liberty. It's all too rare these days.

 

[Papageorgio]

What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?

Making people get help from their destructive lives?

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance.

Says you. The entire debate here is whether anyone should have to give up their rights in exchange for utilizing government service. Some of us are less eager to go down that path.

Says you. I disagree with you. You have said nothing that sways me. Practicing an illegal activity then expecting government to help you continue down that path is wrong. The government is not in the business of enabling illegal drug activity and ruining families.

I can only appeal to a genuine respect for liberty. It's all too rare these days.

I agree, we have liberty and we have freedom and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place. Most drug abusers have other issues and drugs are taken to mask the issue.

 

[Pogo]

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance.

Bull. Shit. The world doesn't work that way just because you wanna play Nanny.

 

[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.

I like this part: "Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it."
The purpose of welfare is to help get people back on their feet. Not to simply subsidize them for sitting on their asses. Doing drugs isn't exactly helpful to the formers ends. 1/3rd of those tested in NC were found to have done drugs. We shouldn't invest in future of those who refuse to invest in their own future. You can't get a job if you fail a drug test. You shouldn't get welfare if you fail a drug test.

Shouldn't anyone who gets ANY form of government assistance be drug tested then?

Government subsidized loans, farm subsidies, etc etc.

Works for me.

I'm sure it does. But the fascists haven't taken over yet.

The government has no business subsidizing corporations, farms or loan money.

Drug test or not, we don't need to waste the taxpayers money.

Soooo... you think chemical analyses are free?
You want the taxpayer's money spent on them even though they cannot show the evidence you're assuming they do?

THERE is your waste. Sorry, I do not want my tax revenue spent on puritanincal behavior-controlling bullshit.

 

[dblack]

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance.

Says you. The entire debate here is whether anyone should have to give up their rights in exchange for utilizing government service. Some of us are less eager to go down that path.

Says you. I disagree with you. You have said nothing that sways me. Practicing an illegal activity then expecting government to help you continue down that path is wrong. The government is not in the business of enabling illegal drug activity and ruining families.

I can only appeal to a genuine respect for liberty. It's all too rare these days.

I agree, we have liberty and we have freedom and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place. Most drug abusers have other issues and drugs are taken to mask the issue.

Yes, it is asking too much. The responsibility associated with freedom is to respect the freedom of others; to ensure your actions don't bring harm to others and accept accounability for it if they do.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you personally, because that's not my goal here. I'm simply trying to expose what I consider an unacceptable hypocrisy in modern conservatism, particular as it's implemented by the Republican party. For several decades now, Republicans have courted libertarians with claims that they favor limited government and protection of individual liberty. But the claims don't hold water, and drug prohibition policies are a good example.

 

[Wilbur Right]

and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place.

You know that alcohol is much MUCH bigger problem for poor people than other drugs?

What you want to do about alcohol? Nothing you say?
You think drinking 3 or 4 40oz malt liquors is better than a joint or two?

 

[Moonglow]

and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place.

You know that alcohol is much MUCH bigger problem for poor people than other drugs?

What you want to do about alcohol? Nothing you say?
You think drinking 3 or 4 40oz malt liquors is better than a joint or two?

But the whole reason for the agriculture revolution was to make enough beer and food to eat..

 

[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?

*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.

Someone who sparked one joint isn't likely to fail a drug test.

 

[Papageorgio]

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance.

Says you. The entire debate here is whether anyone should have to give up their rights in exchange for utilizing government service. Some of us are less eager to go down that path.

Says you. I disagree with you. You have said nothing that sways me. Practicing an illegal activity then expecting government to help you continue down that path is wrong. The government is not in the business of enabling illegal drug activity and ruining families.

I can only appeal to a genuine respect for liberty. It's all too rare these days.

I agree, we have liberty and we have freedom and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place. Most drug abusers have other issues and drugs are taken to mask the issue.

Yes, it is asking too much. The responsibility associated with freedom is to respect the freedom of others; to ensure your actions don't bring harm to others and accept accounability for it if they do.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you personally, because that's not my goal here. I'm simply trying to expose what I consider an unacceptable hypocrisy in modern conservatism, particular as it's implemented by the Republican party. For several decades now, Republicans have courted libertarians with claims that they favor limited government and protection of individual liberty. But the claims don't hold water, and drug prohibition policies are a good example.

Drug and alcohol addiction does a lot of damage to others, not just the person using. That I think is my issue. Addicts will use every means they have to get the next fix, giving them cash or food stamps enables them to keep going. Addiction is a huge issue, it ruins millions of people's lives each year.

You aren't picking on me, we are discussing solutions to social issues. I am not a Republican, I am socially conservative, I don't care what either party thinks, I am thinking of those that have been ravaged by addiction and how to help them gain sobriety. I am also for legalizing drugs, taxing them, using the tax dollars for rehab. Less crap dealers can cut the drugs with. Also. We know who is using and who may need help.

How does giving them more money help them break free of their addiction is my question.

 

[Papageorgio]

and with both there are responsibilities and consequences. Is it asking to much that a person asking for government assistance refrain from taking illegal drugs that are ruining families and lives on a daily basis, that is almost certainly causing them to need assistance in the first place.

You know that alcohol is much MUCH bigger problem for poor people than other drugs?

What you want to do about alcohol? Nothing you say?
You think drinking 3 or 4 40oz malt liquors is better than a joint or two?

No, I don't think either is a good idea. Ruining your life and others lives with addiction is a terrible waste of life, time and energy.