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

[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 rich

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.

What else does government do?

 

[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.

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.

Not exactly a flaw when all employers, for liability reasons, have effetely banned drug use (to include marijuana).

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Not exactly a flaw when all employers, for liability reasons, have effetely banned drug use (to include marijuana).

Not true, since all companies do not even test for drugs as consideration for employment..It is the insurance industry which imposed the liability association with drug testing..

 

[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'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.

What else does government do?

It protects our rights. This is the key difference between a libertarian outlook and modern conservatism, and it's why I see little material difference between Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians believe government is there to protect our freedom to live the way we want, not to decide how we should live and push us in that direction.

As Moonglow pointed out, you're essentially promoting the same perspective that progressives embrace. You just have a different list of 'shoulds'.

 

[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.

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.

Not exactly a flaw when all employers, for liability reasons, have effetely banned drug use (to include marijuana).

Not true, since all companies do not even test for drugs as consideration for employment..It is the insurance industry which imposed the liability association with drug testing..

You are correct and I have stated as much. Most fast food joints, such as the one you managed for 30 years, do not drug test. They nevertheless make their employees consent to drug testing should they be called upon to do so before hiring them. This is the reason why fast food joints are the largest employers of druggies in the U.S. .Of course, the point of welfare is to get people to the point where they are self sufficient. Fast food joints aren't exactly a means to get people off of welfare. Indeed, even the managers of fast food joints are on welfare. But I don't need tell you this of course. By the way, how many years did you need public assistance as a fast food manager before you became self sufficient? I think you can substantively add to our discussion.

 

[Publius1787]

s

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

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.

What else does government do?

It protects our rights. This is the key difference between a libertarian outlook and modern conservatism, and it's why I see little material difference between Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians believe government is there to protect our freedom to live the way we want, not to decide how we should live and push us in that direction.

As Moonglow pointed out, this is the same perspective that progressives embrace. You just have a different list of 'shoulds'.

Good answer. Now how do you protect someone's rights without curbing behavior? The problem with libertarians is that they are blinded by strict ideology to the point that they do not realize that even defending the liberties of others requires the state to provide behavior incentives to forgo liberty sapping behavior. What is the murders incentive not to murder? The robbers incentive not to rob? You see, the state does little more than enacting laws to sanction behavior. We can argue over what behavior should be sanctioned and what behavior should not, but in every case the state is in the human behavior manipulating business; even if you're a libertarian.

With that said we should debate foreign policy some time. No one is more naïve than a libertarians on foreign policy. I'll have you tearing down your Ron Paul 2008 poster in your mothers basement in no time.

 

[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

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.

What else does government do?

It protects our rights. This is the key difference between a libertarian outlook and modern conservatism, and it's why I see little material difference between Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians believe government is there to protect our freedom to live the way we want, not to decide how we should live and push us in that direction.

As Moonglow pointed out, this is the same perspective that progressives embrace. You just have a different list of 'shoulds'.

Good answer. Now how do you protect someone's rights without curbing behavior? The problem with libertarians is that they are blinded by strict ideology to the point that they do not realize that even defending the liberties of others requires the state to provide behavior incentives to forgo liberty sapping behavior. What is the murders incentive not to murder? The robbers incentive not to rob? You see, the state does little more than enacting laws to sanction behavior. We can argue over what behavior should be sanctioned and what behavior should not, but in every case the state is in the human behavior manipulating business; even if you're a libertarian.

To protect our rights, government only needs to curb behavior that violates our rights.

 

[Publius1787]

The rich
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.

What else does government do?

It protects our rights. This is the key difference between a libertarian outlook and modern conservatism, and it's why I see little material difference between Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians believe government is there to protect our freedom to live the way we want, not to decide how we should live and push us in that direction.

As Moonglow pointed out, this is the same perspective that progressives embrace. You just have a different list of 'shoulds'.

Good answer. Now how do you protect someone's rights without curbing behavior? The problem with libertarians is that they are blinded by strict ideology to the point that they do not realize that even defending the liberties of others requires the state to provide behavior incentives to forgo liberty sapping behavior. What is the murders incentive not to murder? The robbers incentive not to rob? You see, the state does little more than enacting laws to sanction behavior. We can argue over what behavior should be sanctioned and what behavior should not, but in every case the state is in the human behavior manipulating business; even if you're a libertarian.

To protect our rights, government only needs to curb behavior that violates our rights.

I never argued otherwise. I only said that government is in the behavior manipulating business. You disagreed. Now you agree.

Now with respect to all my previous arguments in this thread, they are made not in a perfect world, but with the realist understanding that the society you advocate for is impossible given our current political situation. It will continue to be impossible in our lifetimes. So, I have the choice of being a strict libertarian ideologue or a conservative realist. The latter is far more practical and the former will only make me look like a moron who fails to take into account the political environmental situation in which I find myself.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Not exactly a flaw when all employers, for liability reasons, have effetely banned drug use (to include marijuana).

Not true, since all companies do not even test for drugs as consideration for employment..It is the insurance industry which imposed the liability association with drug testing..

You are correct and I have stated as much. Most fast food joints, such as the one you managed for 30 years, do not drug test. They nevertheless make their employees consent to drug testing should they be called upon to do so before hiring them. This is the reason why fast food joints are the largest employers of druggies in the U.S. .Of course, the point of welfare is to get people to the point where they are self sufficient. Fast food joints aren't exactly a means to get people off of welfare. Indeed, even the managers of fast food joints are on welfare. But I don't need tell you this of course. By the way, how many years did you need public assistance as a fast food manager before you became self sufficient? I think you can substantively add to our discussion.

Which restaurant did I manage at 25?
I left the corporate industry in 1992 and have never looked back...I prefer my freedom of choice on who I hire and how I hire them.....Freedom is worth more than money....

 

[easyt65]

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

Surprise, surprise... Think of all the tax dollars we could save if we made this drug test policy a federal law and kick people who test positive off welfare and withhold other social programs from them.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Not exactly a flaw when all employers, for liability reasons, have effetely banned drug use (to include marijuana).

Not true, since all companies do not even test for drugs as consideration for employment..It is the insurance industry which imposed the liability association with drug testing..

You are correct and I have stated as much. Most fast food joints, such as the one you managed for 30 years, do not drug test. They nevertheless make their employees consent to drug testing should they be called upon to do so before hiring them. This is the reason why fast food joints are the largest employers of druggies in the U.S. .Of course, the point of welfare is to get people to the point where they are self sufficient. Fast food joints aren't exactly a means to get people off of welfare. Indeed, even the managers of fast food joints are on welfare. But I don't need tell you this of course. By the way, how many years did you need public assistance as a fast food manager before you became self sufficient? I think you can substantively add to our discussion.

Which restaurant did I manage at 25?

LOL, the guy is checking if I'm stalking him. Don't worry, I simply assessed that you were a fast food manager based on your responses. I don't know which fast food joint you managed.

 

[Moonglow]

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

Surprise, surprise... Think of all the tax dollars we could save if we made this drug test policy a federal law and kick people who test positive off welfare and withhold other social programs from them.

22 of 89 is not 33 1/3%

 

[Publius1787]

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

Surprise, surprise... Think of all the tax dollars we could save if we made this drug test policy a federal law and kick people who test positive off welfare and withhold other social programs from them.

22 of 89 is not 33 1/3%

Typo. Its 1/4. Still a terrific number.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Not exactly a flaw when all employers, for liability reasons, have effetely banned drug use (to include marijuana).

Not true, since all companies do not even test for drugs as consideration for employment..It is the insurance industry which imposed the liability association with drug testing..

You are correct and I have stated as much. Most fast food joints, such as the one you managed for 30 years, do not drug test. They nevertheless make their employees consent to drug testing should they be called upon to do so before hiring them. This is the reason why fast food joints are the largest employers of druggies in the U.S. .Of course, the point of welfare is to get people to the point where they are self sufficient. Fast food joints aren't exactly a means to get people off of welfare. Indeed, even the managers of fast food joints are on welfare. But I don't need tell you this of course. By the way, how many years did you need public assistance as a fast food manager before you became self sufficient? I think you can substantively add to our discussion.

Which restaurant did I manage at 25?

LOL, the guy is checking if I'm stalking him. Don't worry, I simply assessed that you were a fast food manager based on your responses. I don't know which fast food joint you managed.

I only did it when construction fell off the charts during recessions.....Since NW Arkansas was still a small place....in the 1980's. Hell, now it's booming again, yet the old body just won't go like it used to..So now I am forced to be the brain and hire others to be the muscle....
The sad thing is, they pay less now for management in rest. than they did in the 1980's......

 

[easyt65]

22 of 89 is not 33 1/3%

Agreed. I never said it was. I just remarked how I am not surprise that such a drug testing policy revealed people receiving benefits are using drugs. Again, I think the testing should extend nationally and those using removed from the program(s).

 

[dblack]

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

What else does government do?

It protects our rights. This is the key difference between a libertarian outlook and modern conservatism, and it's why I see little material difference between Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians believe government is there to protect our freedom to live the way we want, not to decide how we should live and push us in that direction.

As Moonglow pointed out, this is the same perspective that progressives embrace. You just have a different list of 'shoulds'.

Good answer. Now how do you protect someone's rights without curbing behavior? The problem with libertarians is that they are blinded by strict ideology to the point that they do not realize that even defending the liberties of others requires the state to provide behavior incentives to forgo liberty sapping behavior. What is the murders incentive not to murder? The robbers incentive not to rob? You see, the state does little more than enacting laws to sanction behavior. We can argue over what behavior should be sanctioned and what behavior should not, but in every case the state is in the human behavior manipulating business; even if you're a libertarian.

To protect our rights, government only needs to curb behavior that violates our rights.

I never argued otherwise. I only said that government is in the behavior manipulating business. You disagreed. Now you agree.

That's a specious argument. I said the job of government is to protect our rights. You're saying it's to encourage 'desired' behavior. Those are very different things. Encouraging desired behavior is much broader, and much more invasive, than protecting our rights.

Now with respect to all my previous arguments in this thread, they are made not in a perfect world, but with the realist understanding that the society you advocate for is impossible given our current political situation. It will continue to be impossible in our lifetimes. So, I have the choice of being a strict libertarian ideologue or a conservative realist. The latter is far more practical and the former will only make me look like a moron who fails to take into account the political environmental situation in which I find myself.

What I advocate really has nothing to do with the argument you are making. But for the record, libertarians aren't fixated on any specific kind of 'libertarian' society. That's sort of the point. We don't believe government should dictate what kind of society we create. We're just advocating for more freedom, rather than less. That's not impossible.

 

[Moonglow]

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

Surprise, surprise... Think of all the tax dollars we could save if we made this drug test policy a federal law and kick people who test positive off welfare and withhold other social programs from them.

22 of 89 is not 33 1/3%

Typo. Its 1/4. Still a terrific number.

If it justifies the cost...

 

[jillian]

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."

they only tested a tiny percent of people on welfare and those were people they suspected of drug use.

it cost far more to test them than it was worth based on what they found.

just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor doesn't mean we should let you wackos do that.

 

[easyt65]

I only did it when construction fell off the charts during recessions.....

Drugs or welfare?

Just kidding...

 

[Moonglow]

22 of 89 is not 33 1/3%

Agreed. I never said it was. I just remarked how I am not surprise that such a drug testing policy revealed people receiving benefits are using drugs. Again, I think the testing should extend nationally and those using removed from the program(s).

To me it depends what drugs they are using. But the focus should be on the greed that causes the most harm to the welfare system..Fraud from doctors and clinics..