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

[Pogo]

Stripping people of their rights in exchange for government services is a very bad precedent. This is just resentful conservatives trying to attach a poison pill to welfare programs they don't think should exist in the first place.

Welfare is the very definition of stripping people of their rights for a government service. The problem is that you believe the rights should only be stripped in one direction, i.e. that people should be taxed their money to pay for the lack of industry of others whilst the beneficiaries of that money should retain their title to it despite doing acts the opposite of those ends the money is intended.

When will we start testing people that get a tax refund??

---- or a tax exemption?

 

[dblack]

Stripping people of their rights in exchange for government services is a very bad precedent. This is just resentful conservatives trying to attach a poison pill to welfare programs they don't think should exist in the first place.

So you think it's fair for a lot of the people PAYING THE BILLS to be drug tested and stay drug-free, only to have part of the paycheck they EARNED taken away to buy drugs for a bunch of worthless Libs who would rather smoke crack all day than get a job and pay their own damn bills???

I don't think it's fair for government to make anyone pay anyone else's bills. Period.

 

[Moonglow]

I don't think it's fair that people that pass these laws refuse to submit to drug test for office...They claim it's an invasion of privacy..

 

[Moonglow]

Stripping people of their rights in exchange for government services is a very bad precedent. This is just resentful conservatives trying to attach a poison pill to welfare programs they don't think should exist in the first place.

Welfare is the very definition of stripping people of their rights for a government service. The problem is that you believe the rights should only be stripped in one direction, i.e. that people should be taxed their money to pay for the lack of industry of others whilst the beneficiaries of that money should retain their title to it despite doing acts the opposite of those ends the money is intended.

When will we start testing people that get a tax refund??

You mean a tax credit? A tax refund is simply the money you overpaid.

Not if you paid in zero..

 

[Publius1787]

Stripping people of their rights in exchange for government services is a very bad precedent. This is just resentful conservatives trying to attach a poison pill to welfare programs they don't think should exist in the first place.

Welfare is the very definition of stripping people of their rights for a government service. The problem is that you believe the rights should only be stripped in one direction, i.e. that people should be taxed their money to pay for the lack of industry of others whilst the beneficiaries of that money should retain their title to it despite doing acts the opposite of those ends the money is intended.

No, I don't. I'm opposed to all government welfare. I just don't think two wrongs make a right.

On one side you have one group paying taxes for the sole benefit of another. On the other side you have the beneficiaries who in turn are supposed to use the money to get back on their feet. There should be conditions tied to receiving benefits that protect the taxpayers interests.

 

[Publius1787]

I don't think it's fair that people that pass these laws refuse to submit to drug test for office...They claim it's an invasion of privacy..

Unfortunately that goes to "public trust."

 

[Publius1787]

Stripping people of their rights in exchange for government services is a very bad precedent. This is just resentful conservatives trying to attach a poison pill to welfare programs they don't think should exist in the first place.

Welfare is the very definition of stripping people of their rights for a government service. The problem is that you believe the rights should only be stripped in one direction, i.e. that people should be taxed their money to pay for the lack of industry of others whilst the beneficiaries of that money should retain their title to it despite doing acts the opposite of those ends the money is intended.

When will we start testing people that get a tax refund??

You mean a tax credit? A tax refund is simply the money you overpaid.

Not if you paid in zero..

If you paid in zero you get zero, unless, you get tax credits.

 

[Obiwan]

Stripping people of their rights in exchange for government services is a very bad precedent. This is just resentful conservatives trying to attach a poison pill to welfare programs they don't think should exist in the first place.

Welfare is the very definition of stripping people of their rights for a government service. The problem is that you believe the rights should only be stripped in one direction, i.e. that people should be taxed their money to pay for the lack of industry of others whilst the beneficiaries of that money should retain their title to it despite doing acts the opposite of those ends the money is intended.

When will we start testing people that get a tax refund??

Do you really think people should be tested for wanting THEIR OWN MONEY THAT THEY EARNED, but they have NO RIGHT to ask the people they have to SUPPORT to take one???

I always knew you were pretty retarded, but THAT certainly sets a new standard for stupidity, even for you...

 

[Moonglow]

Stripping people of their rights in exchange for government services is a very bad precedent. This is just resentful conservatives trying to attach a poison pill to welfare programs they don't think should exist in the first place.

Welfare is the very definition of stripping people of their rights for a government service. The problem is that you believe the rights should only be stripped in one direction, i.e. that people should be taxed their money to pay for the lack of industry of others whilst the beneficiaries of that money should retain their title to it despite doing acts the opposite of those ends the money is intended.

No, I don't. I'm opposed to all government welfare. I just don't think two wrongs make a right.

On one side you have one group paying taxes for the sole benefit of another. On the other side you have the beneficiaries who in turn are supposed to use the money to get back on their feet. There should be conditions tied to receiving benefits that protect the taxpayers interests.

I'll agree 100% when you make govt. legislatures and executives, along with judiciary take drugs test for office...

 

[Moonglow]

I don't think it's fair that people that pass these laws refuse to submit to drug test for office...They claim it's an invasion of privacy..

Unfortunately that goes to "public trust."

Evidently there is no public trust from legislators..

 

[Moonglow]

Stripping people of their rights in exchange for government services is a very bad precedent. This is just resentful conservatives trying to attach a poison pill to welfare programs they don't think should exist in the first place.

Welfare is the very definition of stripping people of their rights for a government service. The problem is that you believe the rights should only be stripped in one direction, i.e. that people should be taxed their money to pay for the lack of industry of others whilst the beneficiaries of that money should retain their title to it despite doing acts the opposite of those ends the money is intended.

When will we start testing people that get a tax refund??

Do you really think people should be tested for wanting THEIR OWN MONEY THAT THEY EARNED, but they have NO RIGHT to ask the people they have to SUPPORT to take one???

I always knew you were pretty retarded, but THAT certainly sets a new standard for stupidity, even for you...

Funny how the IRS calls it a refund..even if you paid in zero dollars..

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

And this is based on --- what? An orifice that can be tested with a proctoscope?

The fast food industry has the most drug abusers in employment. You may look it up if you like. It's a well known fact. It is also the reason fast food doesn't drug test. Oh they make their employees sign a promise to take a drug test if called upon, but, they don't take drug tests. I know quite a few people who have worked in fast food for 10+ years and have never been called to take a drug test.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The OP seems intent on moving the discussion to one of taxes and tax burden.

Let's not.

Drug testing as a requirement for SNAP or other public assistance is one of those "common sense" ideas that nutbags love. On its face...it seems like a great idea. Why should we fund the habits of drug addled, lazy fucks? That's enabling their poor behavior!

That works.....until you look into the matter. Do the math....and realize that those dollars aren't going to pay for drugs and taking them away won't help A SINGLE PERSON......ESPECIALLY THE TAXPAYER.

Idiots.

 

[Publius1787]

The compelling interest for drug testing welfare applicants is to ensure that they aren't gaming the system by letting the government subsidize their drug habit. This is the antithesis of getting back on your feet.

You could make the same claim for any government service where some people are net beneficiaries. Public schools subsidize education costs for parents. That's money they might well be spending to finance a drug habit. Should we test them too?

Most people are net beneficiaries of public education, if not their children then they themselves. Nevertheless, I think the argument can be made that we have a compelling interest to educate our children. We do not have a compelling interests to subsidize someone's drug habit.

 

[Publius1787]

Awesome thinking!

Let's test otherwise law abiding citizens who need some help paying bills and feeding their kids...so we can see if they smoked a joint last week. . If so....we can deny them the few hundred bucks of assistance they get. Then, they can resort to a criminal act to pay those bills. We can catch them and put them in jail....for 30k per year......and then pay to feed the kids some other way.

It's brilliant conservative thinking.

The state has a compelling interest to prevent drug users from raising children. You disagree?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The compelling interest for drug testing welfare applicants is to ensure that they aren't gaming the system by letting the government subsidize their drug habit. This is the antithesis of getting back on your feet.

You could make the same claim for any government service where some people are net beneficiaries. Public schools subsidize education costs for parents. That's money they might well be spending to finance a drug habit. Should we test them too?

Most people are net beneficiaries of public education, if not their children then they themselves. Nevertheless, I think the argument can be made that we have a compelling interest to educate our children. We do not have a compelling interests to subsidize someone's drug habit.

More thinking is required.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Gee, if you think it's fair for welfare recipients to have other people pay to finance their drug habit, I just might have a suggestion for you...

Have their dope dealers come to YOUR HOUSE OR JOB to collect for their drugs...

And if you think a urine-trouble test conclusively shows that (a) they paid for whatever substance shows up and (b) that they paid for it with assistance money, I just might have a suggestion for you --- take a logic class.

The compelling interest for drug testing welfare applicants is to ensure that they aren't gaming the system by letting the government subsidize their drug habit.

Looks like you need the same class.

Money is fungible. There's some logic for you. For Example:

Antwan Obama Jones makes $1500 a month working odd jobs under the table. When he isn't working he likes to hit the crack pipe. Unfortunately for Jones, he wont be able to smoke his crack because he's behind on his rent. But suddenly, Jones gets an idea, he'll go to social services. Social services pays his rent, his electricity, his water, his public transportation, and his food. Now Antwan Obama Jones can continue to work odd jobs, have all of his bills paid, and utilize more of his earned income for smoking crack. This makes Pogo happy!

 

[Publius1787]

The compelling interest for drug testing welfare applicants is to ensure that they aren't gaming the system by letting the government subsidize their drug habit. This is the antithesis of getting back on your feet.

You could make the same claim for any government service where some people are net beneficiaries. Public schools subsidize education costs for parents. That's money they might well be spending to finance a drug habit. Should we test them too?

Most people are net beneficiaries of public education, if not their children then they themselves. Nevertheless, I think the argument can be made that we have a compelling interest to educate our children. We do not have a compelling interests to subsidize someone's drug habit.

More thinking is required.

Back to school: Argument vs. Contradiction

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

And this is based on --- what? An orifice that can be tested with a proctoscope?

The fast food industry has the most drug abusers in employment. You may look it up if you like. It's a well known fact. It is also the reason fast food doesn't drug test. Oh they make their employees sign a promise to take a drug test if called upon, but, they don't take drug tests. I know quite a few people who have worked in fast food for 10+ years and have never been called to take a drug test.

Another opinionated load..I ran a company for 30 years and never drug tested cause I believe that a worker can do their job, there is no need to harass them..

Awesome thinking!

Let's test otherwise law abiding citizens who need some help paying bills and feeding their kids...so we can see if they smoked a joint last week. . If so....we can deny them the few hundred bucks of assistance they get. Then, they can resort to a criminal act to pay those bills. We can catch them and put them in jail....for 30k per year......and then pay to feed the kids some other way.

It's brilliant conservative thinking.

The state has a compelling interest to prevent drug users from raising children. You disagree?

Why not drunks also?
I do believe construction has drug use also, that rivals if not surpasses rest. workers...

 

[Moonglow]

The intrusive people that feel the need to play moralist are nothing less than progressives, ones that seek to control the lives of others...