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

[LoneLaugher]

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...

I'll bet you were a fast food manager for 30 years.

There it is. Behold the elitist.

I knew it!!!!!!!

You knew nothing. You know nothing.

 

[Publius1787]

Money is fungible. There's some logic for you.

That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.

Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.

Reread until it sinks in.

If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.

Based on --------- what?

If you bend over for random body fluid screens, you don't deserve a job anyway.

Oh, I see you've added on to your previous comment. Well, If you got my paycheck you might change your mind.

In other words you're a whore.

If getting paid on the condition that I provide a service and take an accessional drug test makes me a whore than count me guilty as charged.

 

[Moonglow]

When in the Army, I got a dwi in 1986, they were going to drug test me, but my head NCO ask me if I was hot, I replied yes, they had someone else take the test.. See what happens when your a good soldier?

Yeah, the way they have it set up today it wouldn't work that way. You're secured in a room with multiple witnesses.

Just another excuse for fecal felliacs to have a job....

 

[Publius1787]

If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.

Based on --------- what?

policy and law

Do you enjoy the law of the ACA?

Dunno, I don't get my insurance through the exchanges as you do in your fast food management job.

I use the VA...If not, I'd be on medicare..

Yeah, the VA, one of the most defrauded and abused services in the U.S. government. Where you can go to a PTSD meeting filled with fellow veterans with not a single combat vet among them. I refused to fill out the VA claim form when I got out. Everyone was a fraud that day. Shameful.

 

[Publius1787]

When in the Army, I got a dwi in 1986, they were going to drug test me, but my head NCO ask me if I was hot, I replied yes, they had someone else take the test.. See what happens when your a good soldier?

Yeah, the way they have it set up today it wouldn't work that way. You're secured in a room with multiple witnesses.

Just another excuse for fecal felliacs to have a job....

Its done by the military. Not contractors. It falls under a secondary duty for everyone except the people who test it, which is also military.

 

[Pogo]

That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.

Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.

Reread until it sinks in.

If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.

Based on --------- what?

If you bend over for random body fluid screens, you don't deserve a job anyway.

Oh, I see you've added on to your previous comment. Well, If you got my paycheck you might change your mind.

In other words you're a whore.

If getting paid on the condition that I provide a service and take an accessional drug test makes me a whore than count me guilty as charged.

Consider it already done. And if you were simply selling out your own principles because you just don't have the stones to refuse, that would be all there was to it.

Unfortunately it isn't --- you're an enabler. When you bend over, they figure the next guy will have to, because now they have a precedent.

None of which however affects the topic or the point thereupon. The fact is that the presence of "drugs" --- whatever that means --- even if it were Constitutional, which it isn't --- STILL doesn't mean that benefit money, or any other money, was involved in that ingestion. There's no way to get to that conclusion.

 

[Moonglow]

When in the Army, I got a dwi in 1986, they were going to drug test me, but my head NCO ask me if I was hot, I replied yes, they had someone else take the test.. See what happens when your a good soldier?

Yeah, the way they have it set up today it wouldn't work that way. You're secured in a room with multiple witnesses.

Just another excuse for fecal felliacs to have a job....

Its done by the military. Not contractors. It falls under a secondary duty for everyone except the people who test it, which is also military.

No shit Sherlock...but it is still no excuse for the most technologically advanced military in ze world that need to watch you pee...

 

[initforme]

Let's remember it is north Carolina.

 

[Moonglow]

If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.

Based on --------- what?

If you bend over for random body fluid screens, you don't deserve a job anyway.

Oh, I see you've added on to your previous comment. Well, If you got my paycheck you might change your mind.

In other words you're a whore.

If getting paid on the condition that I provide a service and take an accessional drug test makes me a whore than count me guilty as charged.

Consider it already done. And if you were simply selling out your own principles because you just don't have the stones to refuse, that would be all there was to it.

Unfortunately it isn't --- you're an enabler. When you bend over, they figure the next guy will have to, because now they have a precedent.

Another reason I left corporate America..Why the tie alone is representative of the collard slaves...

 

[Publius1787]

If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.

Based on --------- what?

If you bend over for random body fluid screens, you don't deserve a job anyway.

Oh, I see you've added on to your previous comment. Well, If you got my paycheck you might change your mind.

In other words you're a whore.

If getting paid on the condition that I provide a service and take an accessional drug test makes me a whore than count me guilty as charged.

Consider it already done. And if you were simply selling out your own principles because you just don't have the stones to refuse, that would be all there was to it.

Unfortunately it isn't --- you're an enabler. When you bend over, they figure the next guy will have to, because now they have a precedent.

Yeah man, Stick it to tha man! I'll just continue to live comfortably and legally.

 

[Moonglow]

Let's remember it is north Carolina.

Or the south...

 

[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.

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 think that's a dangerous precedent to set. It's certainly not how I'd want to see government run generally. This is exactly where the intersection of the modern versions of liberalism and conservatism festers. The liberals create state dependency and the conservatives use it as an excuse to lord it over people. It's seriously fucked up in my view.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, less than 3/10ths of 1 percent tested positive.

Idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

If you're going to test, you should test everyone who gets a benefit from the government that they don't work for.

That includes tax deductions.

 

[Publius1787]

Let's remember it is north Carolina.

Or the south...

No, less than 3/10ths of 1 percent tested positive.

Idiot.

Wrong, 3/10ths of one percent who applied tested positive. But only 87 were tested with 21 testing positive.

 

[dblack]

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.

You're steering around the point. If you're going to say that providing people with benefits indirectly subsidizes things you don't approve of - well, that works with pretty much any government program, and if this kind precedent is accepted all kinds of 'compelling interests' will be pitched to control us. No thanks.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Ian all for drug testing, but if you are going to test the poor have the same rules for the rich. Anyone who regularly receives taxpayer money should be tested. That includes all politicians and state workers. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If they don't like that then don't advocate for drug testing.

 

[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.

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!

Again, this argument can be made about any government program that subsidizes pretty much anything. Should that be an excuse to strip away the rights of everyone who utilizes the benefits?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's remember it is north Carolina.

Or the south...

No, less than 3/10ths of 1 percent tested positive.

Idiot.

Wrong, 3/10ths of one percent who applied tested positive. But only 87 were tested with 21 testing positive.

7600 were screened. Don't you know why they only took 87 after the screening process?

 

[dblack]

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

It's hard to miss that 'ethic' shining through here.