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

[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.

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.

Yeah, the above statement did nothing to make my previous point any less valid.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

There is a difference between people who work and those that sit on their ass.

 

[Obiwan]

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

Idiot.

It appears to me that YOU'RE the idiot if you think that not being tested constitutes a "negative" result...

I'm sure a lot more would have been caught if ALL the recipients had been tested...

But keep spinning...

 

[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.

Yeah, the above statement did nothing to make my previous point any less valid.

It does if you pay close attention. I'm not suggesting we should subsidize drug use. I'm saying any subsidies can indirectly support 'bad' behavior, and if you're going to be consistent, all recipients should be held to the same standards. You're picking and choosing because you have a beef with welfare, that apparently you don't have with other government subsidies. It's hypocritical.

 

[IsaacNewton]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

As long as all state elected and appointed officials, and all state employees are also given the exact same test and lose their jobs if testing positive.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

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.

Yeah, the above statement did nothing to make my previous point any less valid.

It does if you pay close attention. I'm not suggesting we should subsidize drug use. I'm saying any subsidies can indirectly support 'bad' behavior, and if you're going to be consistent about, all recipients should be held to the same standards. You're picking and choosing because you have a beef with welfare, that apparently you don't have with other government subsidies. It's hypocritical.

It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to implement a government drug testing program that aimed at everyone. The rich get tax incentives because the government is attempting to subsidize the behavior of the wealthy. They're given for investments and actions that the government deems positive. Those on welfare receive welfare on the basis that they need a temporary leg up. The intent is to put people in the position to become self sufficient. If you cant pass a drug test then you cannot get a job and be self sufficient. Unlike granting the wealthy a tax incentive for state sanctioned behavior, the behavior the state is trying to sanction (The reason why Welfare Exists) in welfare is undermined by the use of drugs by the targeted beneficiaries. BIG DIFFERENCE

 

[Publius1787]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

As long as all state elected and appointed officials, and all state employees are also given the exact same test and lose their jobs if testing positive.

Well I know all state employees are.

 

[IsaacNewton]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

As long as all state elected and appointed officials, and all state employees are also given the exact same test and lose their jobs if testing positive.

Well I know all state employees are.

Every elected official needs to be tested in public. Let's be fair now.

 

[Publius1787]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

As long as all state elected and appointed officials, and all state employees are also given the exact same test and lose their jobs if testing positive.

Well I know all state employees are.

Every elected official needs to be tested in public.Let's be fair now.

Good luck trying to get them to vote for their own drug test.

 

[Pogo]

If you cant pass a drug test then you cannot get a job and be self sufficient.

Horseshit. Again, another conclusion without a bridge to it.

 

[Publius1787]

If you cant pass a drug test then you cannot get a job and be self sufficient.

Horseshit. Again, another conclusion without a bridge to it.

Damn, my argument was so good that this is all you could take out and scrutinize!!?? I'll let it stand on it's merits. Thank you very much and have a nice evening.

 

[Moonglow]

.Work First is the state welfare program that offers short-term cash benefits, training and support services to families. In about 62 percent of Work First cases, only children get benefits — and no adults fall under the test requirement

Missouri started the same program, yet as you see, they are only testing those receiving cash benefits...Not for SNAP..When will they need to start testing children? Since they receive the majority of benefits?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Idiot.

It appears to me that YOU'RE the idiot if you think that not being tested constitutes a "negative" result...

I'm sure a lot more would have been caught if ALL the recipients had been tested...

But keep spinning...
View attachment 71276

They screened for likely drug users.

 

[Pogo]

If you cant pass a drug test then you cannot get a job and be self sufficient.

Horseshit. Again, another conclusion without a bridge to it.

Damn, my argument was so good that this is all you could take out and scrutinize!!?? I'll let it stand on it's merits. Thank you very much and have a nice evening.

I don't NEED more than one fatal flaw to deconstruct an inoperative argument. When you lose your keys and then find them ---- do you keep on looking?

Thanks. I intend to.

 

[Moonglow]

As far as the reasons for the 9/11 attacks was the infringement of holy land, in Saudi, occupied by the coalition forces, mainly the US during the Gulf war...

 

[Obiwan]

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

Idiot.

It appears to me that YOU'RE the idiot if you think that not being tested constitutes a "negative" result...

I'm sure a lot more would have been caught if ALL the recipients had been tested...

But keep spinning...
View attachment 71276

They screened for likely drug users.

Which means they had probable cause to test them (as opposed to random screening)...

You're starting to make it pretty apparent that you are in favor of using tax dollars to subsidize drug use by welfare recipients when you readily admit the screening is for likely drug users, and are still strongly opposed to it!!!

 

[Shrimpbox]

Well let's put to rest the idea that everyone who smokes pot is a stoner that does not work. Half of our employees are pot heads and they work real hard. I am just for consistency. You know how they say how blacks are put in jail for things white boy's do all the time, well they have a point. This falls under the same category. So it's ok for legislators to pass such a law and then go back and do a couple of lines in the office? Come on. Whatever happened to the politicians should have to have the same healthcare the rest of us do? And let's dispense also with the stereotype that welfare is a helping hand that allows people a chance to improve their status. I guess that's why we have generational welfare. Let's investigate who is receiving welfare that owes child support, who is receiving welfare while living with a man, who's selling ebt cards for money, who is receiving g welfare that owes taxes, or who is falsely stating that they went to three places today to inquire about a job. Oh yeah, how about who is receiving benefits and working for cash. All of this is illegal but nothing will be done about it. So like with so many things, the idea of testing is commendable, but the practical implementation is problematic.

 

[Moonglow]

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

Idiot.

It appears to me that YOU'RE the idiot if you think that not being tested constitutes a "negative" result...

I'm sure a lot more would have been caught if ALL the recipients had been tested...

But keep spinning...
View attachment 71276

They screened for likely drug users.

Which means they had probable cause to test them (as opposed to random screening)...

You're starting to make it pretty apparent that you are in favor of using tax dollars to subsidize drug use by welfare recipients when you readily admit the screening is for likely drug users, and are still strongly opposed to it!!!

Legislature members have been arrested for drugs and use of drugs, yet they do not have to take a drug test for their govt. funded position...

 

[Obiwan]

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

Idiot.

It appears to me that YOU'RE the idiot if you think that not being tested constitutes a "negative" result...

I'm sure a lot more would have been caught if ALL the recipients had been tested...

But keep spinning...
View attachment 71276

They screened for likely drug users.

Which means they had probable cause to test them (as opposed to random screening)...

You're starting to make it pretty apparent that you are in favor of using tax dollars to subsidize drug use by welfare recipients when you readily admit the screening is for likely drug users, and are still strongly opposed to it!!!

Legislature members have been arrested for drugs and use of drugs, yet they do not have to take a drug test for their govt. funded position...

If they're busted, get them out of office...

Oh, that's right... It seems that the majority of the ones that get busted are Democrats...

 

[dblack]

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.

The rich

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.

Yeah, the above statement did nothing to make my previous point any less valid.

It does if you pay close attention. I'm not suggesting we should subsidize drug use. I'm saying any subsidies can indirectly support 'bad' behavior, and if you're going to be consistent about, all recipients should be held to the same standards. You're picking and choosing because you have a beef with welfare, that apparently you don't have with other government subsidies. It's hypocritical.

It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to implement a government drug testing program that aimed at everyone. The rich get tax incentives because the government is attempting to subsidize the behavior of the wealthy. They're given for investments and actions that the government deems positive. Those on welfare receive welfare on the basis that they need a temporary leg up. The intent is to put people in the position to become self sufficient. If you cant pass a drug test then you cannot get a job and be self sufficient. Unlike granting the wealthy a tax incentive for state sanctioned behavior, the behavior the state is trying to sanction (The reason why Welfare Exists) in welfare is undermined by the use of drugs by the targeted beneficiaries. BIG DIFFERENCE

It's no different in my view. Government shouldn't spend its time, and our money, concocting schemes to manipulate our behavior.