# Drug testing for welfare recipients?



## kwflatbed

Drug testing for welfare recipients?




Welfare recipients with prior drug convictions 
would be subject to random drug testing under 
a bill promoted by Rep. Jay Barrows at the 
Statehouse.

More of this story


----------



## HistoryHound

> The bill, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, was the subject of a hearing Tuesday before the legislative Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities. Barrows said he spoke in favor and no one offered any opposition. He noted he has filed the bill before, but it has never advanced through the Legislature.
> 
> "Quite frankly, I've never seen any opposition. I've just never seen it moved through committee," he said.


You know if they try to push forward with this there will be opposition. There will always be the liberals that think that it's a violation of their civil rights. I don't see a problem with it. I don't recall the last time I took or interviewed for a job that didn't have drug testing as a requirement for employment and I know many employers now have a random testing clause as a condition of employment. So, if it's not a violation of my civil rights to require a drug test so I can work; then, it shouldn't be a violation of their civil rights so that they can get taxpayer money.

The only thing that I would suggest is that everyone on public assistance be subject to random urine screening and anyone convicted of a drug related offense be subject to hair folicle testing.


----------



## 263FPD

So if they test negative for drugs, do they lose their welfare and are forced to get a job?


----------



## 7costanza

263FPD said:


> So if they test negative for drugs, do they lose their welfare and are forced to get a job?


No, why would they cause any problems for their voter base.


----------



## cc3915

No way this will ever become law in Massachusetts. Deval would refuse to sign off on it if it got as far as his desk. I have to applaud Rep. Barrows for trying though.


----------



## Guest

Never in a million years will this pass in Massachusetts.....it would decimate the Democrat voter base.

Keep on blindly voting for the big (D), you fucking idiots.


----------



## Johnny Law

One can hope and wish though. I'm 100% for it, and I'd like to take it one step further and require anyone on the dole to submit to drug testing. You fail, you're off it.

You know what they say about wishes though.....Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled first.


----------



## tsunami

fk the walfare sytem is killing all of us who work for a living


----------



## kwflatbed

*RI lawmaker seeks drug tests for welfare takers*

By The Associated Press 
Published: June 15, 2011 

PROVIDENCE -- A Rhode Island lawmaker has introduced legislation to require applicants for public assistance to take a drug screening.
Rep. Doreen Costa says taxpayer assistance should only go to Rhode Islanders truly in need. Her bill is modeled after a new law in Florida. She says drug users shouldn't take advantage of taxpayers by using public assistance to pay for their habit.
The bill would prohibit those who fail the drug test from receiving public assistance.
Costa, a North Kingstown Republican, introduced the legislation last week. Lawmakers are now in the final weeks of their regular session, so it's uncertain whether her bill will even be reviewed this year. No hearing or vote has been scheduled on the legislation.

RI lawmaker seeks drug tests for welfare takers | Turn to 10


----------



## cc3915

*Welfare Drug Tests*

*MIAMI -- *The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida plans to challenge the state's law requiring new welfare recipients to pass a drug test.An ACLU spokesman told The Associated Press Wednesday the lawsuit is being filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Orlando man, Luis Lebron.The spokesman says Florida's drug testing law is unconstitutional, saying it violates the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections.

ACLU Plans Lawsuit Over Welfare Drug Tests - Jacksonville News Story - WJXT Jacksonville


----------



## Herrdoktor

So if I want something (for free btw) but I need to be drug tested before I get it my rights have been violated?

Cool I guess?


----------



## Guest

So, my 4th Amendment rights were violated while I was in the military, when I was going through the hiring process for multiple police departments, and most recently when I had to be drug tested for an unpaid internship?

When should I expect a call from the ACLU about filing a lawsuit on my behalf?

Oh, wait....I'm a legal US citizen, I work, pay taxes, am a productive member of society, and don't use drugs.......never mind!


----------



## ImperialGuard

It ends up costing the state more to test, and it failed in Florida. Less than 2% tested positive.


----------



## Guest

ImperialGuard said:


> It ends up costing the state more to test, and it failed in Florida. Less than 2% tested positive.


Even if that were true, which I don't believe for one second, I'd rather spend the money on testing than to give a single dime to a junkie/crackhead/pothead/drunk.


----------



## Gunther Toody

I agree with Delta. Test them. No money for booze, drugs, cigarettes, lottery tickets. I think they should also make therm sign a waiver NOT to have anymore children.
When you get caught first tome...all benifits stop immediately. Hey. 28% is a start. Gpal should be to get those $'s up to 50% to 75% Test them when they are more likely to come up dirty.
Thursday's,Fridays, Mondays. Np cursury phone call the day before saying ." He we are going to be testing you tomorrow.
And at the testing sites the monitors MUST step up and make sure they are getting samples that truly brlong to who they are supposed too. Too much hanky panky at the the sights.

---------- Post added at 05:40 ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 ----------

And I thought the offender had to pay for the drug tests?


----------



## ImperialGuard

Delta784 said:


> Even if that were true, which I don't believe for one second, I'd rather spend the money on testing than to give a single dime to a junkie/crackhead/pothead/drunk.


I can't post links but it's true if you google it. In Florida, less than 2% tested positive.

I'm against drug testing in almost all cases so I can't agree. Plus giving up money for welfare + giving up money to test for welfare is just more money lost.


----------



## Guest

ImperialGuard said:


> I can't post links but it's true if you google it. In Florida, less than 2% tested positive.
> 
> I'm against drug testing in almost all cases so I can't agree. Plus giving up money for welfare + giving up money to test for welfare is just more money lost.


Uhhh....maybe they stopped doing drugs because they knew testing was coming? Its not a hair follicle test. Simple piss test I believe. One month to clear. Guaranteed that their office of governmental support gave them plenty of notice. Give it a while, and let me choose who gets tested. Ill hit 20% in one day.

Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## ImperialGuard

5-0 said:


> Uhhh....maybe they stopped doing drugs because they knew testing was coming? Its not a hair follicle test. Simple piss test I believe. One month to clear. Guaranteed that their office of governmental support gave them plenty of notice. Give it a while, and let me choose who gets tested. Ill hit 20% in one day.
> 
> Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


Well Scott's impetus (besides having a stake in a drug testing company) was not to subsidize drug addiction. If you can go a month, you're not really addicted.

My point is that it costs even more money to test, on top of paying for welfare and the low failure rate has thus far disproved the claim that everyone on welfare is on drugs.


----------



## Guest

As far as addiction goes, I think you underestimate their motivation to not lose their meal ticket. I have ZERO faith that this was setup to be successful.

Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## 7costanza

Sounds good to me then Imperial Liberal guard, then we should cut Wefare by atleast 20%. Seing as " poor " today is a fuckin joke. Todays "poor" listed by your Govt has 2 tvs, a gaming station, a car, air conditiioning and more space than the average European does, thats not poor like it should be its poor so the Govt can keep their BS programs going....PLEEEEEEEEEEEAZE!! I read psycho liberal babble so take Herrdocktor and go back to The Huffington Post.


----------



## ImperialGuard

7costanza said:


> Sounds good to me then Imperial Liberal guard, then we should cut Wefare by atlast 20%. Seiing as " poor " today is a fuckin joke. Todays "poor" listed by your Govt has 2 tvs, a gaming station, a car, air conditiioning and more space than the average European does, thats not poor like it should be its poor so the Govt can keep their BS programs going....PLEEEEEEEEEEEAZE!! I read psycho liberal babble so take Herrdocktor and go back to The Huffington Post.


Yeah, I vote 3rd party I'm not much of a liberal. I don't want to pay for welfare, but paying more to prove they're on drugs is just stupid. It's paying even more.


----------



## Guest

Like dinesh d'souza said: "I would love to move to a country where even the poor people are fat"

Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

Put welfare recipients to work for drug testing company if they pass test. Money problem solved 

Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## 7costanza

> Yeah, I vote 3rd party I'm not much of a liberal


Me also, its called the Tea party, without them we would be sunk.


----------



## ImperialGuard

7costanza said:


> Me also, its called the Tea party, without them we would be sunk.


The Tea Party candidates are part of the Republican party, so that's not exactly true. I actually vote outside the two major parties because they're corrupt.


----------



## Guest

ImperialGuard said:


> The Tea Party candidates are part of the Republican party, so that's not exactly true. I actually vote outside the two major parties because they're corrupt.


You're smoked if you think that. I'm a tea party guy, can't stand either party, and most I know feel the same way.

Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## 7costanza

First off, after reading my post I would like to apologize to you and Herrdoktor, I know hes otj and that wasnt right for me to say as Im trying to turn over a new leaf of kindness and compassion which doesnt seem to want to stick. So give me an example of who you ould like to see in the Oval office?


----------



## ImperialGuard

7costanza said:


> First off, after reading my post I would like to apologize to you and Herrdoktor, I know hes otj and that wasnt right for me to say as Im trying to turn over a new leaf of kindness and compassion which doesnt seem to want to stick. So give me an example of who you ould like to see in the Oval office?


Ron Paul is the only one running I would actually want to see in the oval office.


----------



## Rock

Random testing is a great idea even if it only rooted out 15-20 % of the drug addicted/using population on welfare. And by random testing I mean on a moments notice, no excuses. Someone will be at your state funded hotel room with a cup (oh, and by the way if there is someone else living there that shouldn't be you'll both be booted out and you'll be on court ordered restitution for past months). If you don't/cant provide a test it is considered a positive result. 

For the imperialGuard's of the world they could say after the 1st positive test you are required to go to treatment (state funded of course) and provide proof that you attended. 2nd positive test, your cut off. Fair enough? As for the cost...if 20 % were dropped from the program then that would more than make up for the cost of the testing. 

Now I hope to see in the employment thread a posting for "Office of Transitional Assistance - Piss Collector". Anyone need a job?


----------



## HistoryHound

ImperialGuard said:


> Well Scott's impetus (besides having a stake in a drug testing company) was not to subsidize drug addiction. If you can go a month, you're not really addicted.
> 
> My point is that it costs even more money to test, on top of paying for welfare and the low failure rate has thus far disproved the claim that everyone on welfare is on drugs.


So, as long as their not addicted it's ok for them to use occasionally? I don't care if they only use once a month or once every two months. If they're on welfare; then, they shouldn't have the money to but drugs at all. Other than the fact that we would have to test such a large number of people all at once, I really don't see how it would be too expensive to test. I was an HR manager for one of the cheapest companies around and we drug tested everyone. And I do mean EVERYONE. It didn't matter what position they were applying for they all got a cup to pee in. Hell, my last job had me tested three times before I went permanent. I got tested by the agency, then a couple weeks later before I could start the job I got tested again and then when they hired me permanently they tested me again. So I got tested 3 times in less than 4 months for a job because that was the policy. Do you think that was a big deal? I have friends who get randomly tested at work with zero notice. They show up and their supervisor tells them to head to XYZ for their test. Is that a big deal? If those aren't big deals; then, why is testing welfare recipients a big deal. They should get tested without notice and if it's positive all benefits stop. Add up the cost of welfare, MassHealth, WIC, free cell phone and all the other benefits and you will see how much is saved by cutting benefits for one drug using welfare recipients. Before you start with the "not everyone on welfare does drugs" argument, I am not saying that everyone on welfare is a dirtbag. What I'm saying is that the people that abuse the system should be removed from the system freeing up funding for people who need it as a temporary leg up until they can get back on their feet.


----------



## Guest

ImperialGuard said:


> I can't post links but it's true if you google it. In Florida, less than 2% tested positive.


Sorry, not buying it.



ImperialGuard said:


> I'm against drug testing in almost all cases so I can't agree.


Why?

Explain to me why my tax dollars should fund someone else's addiction, while at the same time, I'm subject to drug testing as a condition of my EMPLOYMENT....you know what employment is, right? That's when I WORK and PAY TAXES to fund the welfare system.

Please......I'm dying to see your rationalization.


----------



## CJIS

Yes ImperialGuard please do tell why you are against Drug testing?


----------



## kwflatbed

He sounds just like some of the dopers we have had here before.
Time for an IP check.


----------



## 7costanza

Im guessing Mike Jones or Omega.


----------



## ImperialGuard

Well seeing the intense hostility my comments are being met with, I decline to further pursue the discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience.

And no, I've never been here before.


----------



## kwflatbed

ImperialGuard said:


> Well seeing the intense hostility my comments are being met with, I decline to further pursue the discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> And no, I've never been here before.


Ya sure have a nice day and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.


----------



## CJIS

ImperialGuard said:


> Well seeing the intense hostility my comments are being met with, I decline to further pursue the discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> And no, I've never been here before.


Hey I just want to know why you are against drug testing. If you can make a clear and good aurgument\reason I want to read it.

I can think of some reasons why you may but I want to see it from you.


----------



## ImperialGuard

CJIS said:


> Hey I just want to know why you are against drug testing. If you can make a clear and good aurgument\reason I want to read it.
> 
> I can think of some reasons why you may but I want to see it from you.


Negative, but thanks. I can see this apparently caused people to go insane before so there's no point in discussing it. I mean I'm being accused of being other people and holding beliefs I don't have already, so I'm all set.


----------



## CJIS

ImperialGuard said:


> Negative, but thanks. I can see this apparently caused people to go insane before so there's no point in discussing it. I mean I'm being accused of being other people and holding beliefs I don't have already, so I'm all set.


Ok then... PM it too me if you don't want the world to see it. Im trying to give you a chance to show what you belive in here. Take it or leave it.


----------



## Guest

ImperialGuard said:


> Well seeing the intense hostility my comments are being met with, I decline to further pursue the discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> And no, I've never been here before.


Translation = I got my ass handed to me, and I have no comeback.

I'd still love to see your reasoning as to why I should fund someone else's addiction, while I'm subject to drug testing as a condition of my employment. And, until you answer that question, I'm going to re-post it in response to every single thing you post on this website, from this moment forward.


----------



## ImperialGuard

Delta784 said:


> Translation = I got my ass handed to me, and I have no comeback.
> 
> I'd still love to see your reasoning as to why I should fund someone else's addiction, while I'm subject to drug testing as a condition of my employment. And, until you answer that question, I'm going to re-post it in response to every single thing you post on this website, from this moment forward.


That has nothing to do with it, so don't assume. But since you're going to use harrassment as a reason, fine.

I disagree with drug testing because it's not refined. If drug tests told you the person was intoxicated at the time (say during work hours) I'd have no issue with it.

Drug testing welfare recipients is stupid because:

A) Welfare is stupid and costs money in the first place, already said this

and

B) It costs even MORE to drug test them to get the welfare, based on the assumption that a lot of them are on drugs. This has been disproven in Florida.

Happy? That's it.


----------



## CJIS

I will agree with point A.


If you can show a source that it cost more to do the testing I would love to see it.


----------



## kwflatbed

*More Advice:








*


----------



## ImperialGuard

CJIS said:


> I will agree with point A.
> 
> If you can show a source that it cost more to do the testing I would love to see it.


The state of Florida requires applicants to pay for the drug test if they fail. If they do not, the state pays for it.

So on top of paying 98% of the welfare they were going to, they now have to pay for the drug test for every single one of the 98%.

Florida's welfare drug testing costs more than it saves | Raw Replay

Mind you this was a tiny area of the whole thing, where 2% of the overall actually failed.


----------



## kwflatbed

That was some test.

"A WFTV investigation found that out of the 40 recipients tested by Department of Central Florida's (DCF) region, only two resulted in positive results. And one of those tests is being appealed. "


----------



## ImperialGuard

Florida's drug tests for people receiving welfare benefits could cost taxpayers millions and lead to a lawsuit from the ACLU. | wtsp.com

This says the state saves $4,000, but that's predicated on the certainty that:

Welfare benefits will be requested all year

And, if you fail the drug test, you still get the money it's just given to someone else like your sister or brother.

So it's a pretty massive failure, and people in the 2% can appeal based on false-positives and legal prescriptions or whatever.


----------



## CJIS

OK so "it could Cost." Well until it does they should keep it and perhaps refine it. If what you say is true that the money is given to another source i.e relative perhaps that should be re thought of. False positive should be taken care of if the Applicant brings in a list of their prescription that can be cross checked during testing.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy

That math is 5%. 

If nothing else, it's a detractor to those who do drugs while on the dole. Eventually they will get caught, and benefits removed... Maybe some will not apply for benefits because they know they whiz quiz. If they prove that they're on welfare, substance free, then fine... Carry on. 

I am not going to pay for some freeloading fuck to stay home, smoke pot, and play xbox while I work for a living. I WILL, however, gladly pay for those same people to pee test to ensure they aren't abusing the money I so graciously, yet unwillingly provide.


----------



## HistoryHound

ImperialGuard said:


> Well seeing the intense hostility my comments are being met with, I decline to further pursue the discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> And no, I've never been here before.


These responses were hostile? I guess you really haven't been here before.



ImperialGuard said:


> That has nothing to do with it, so don't assume. But since you're going to use harrassment as a reason, fine.
> 
> I disagree with drug testing because it's not refined. If drug tests told you the person was intoxicated at the time (say during work hours) I'd have no issue with it.
> 
> Drug testing welfare recipients is stupid because:
> 
> A) Welfare is stupid and costs money in the first place, already said this
> 
> and
> 
> B) It costs even MORE to drug test them to get the welfare, based on the assumption that a lot of them are on drugs. This has been disproven in Florida.
> 
> Happy? That's it.


Welfare as the concept was intended is not stupid and for the people who truly need it and rely on it as a temporary subsidy while they get their lives back on track it is a necessity. As mentioned earlier it's not just the welfare money that comes into play, it's all the other freebies that go with it. I don't believe that the expense of testing would be more than is saved by yanking all subsidies to someone who fails the test. Not to mention, that it would benefit those people who are honestly in need by freeing up services for them. It would also go a long way in changing the negative public perception that leaches have created which is unfortunately being shared by the honest folk in the system.



ImperialGuard said:


> Florida's drug tests for people receiving welfare benefits could cost taxpayers millions and lead to a lawsuit from the ACLU. | wtsp.com
> 
> This says the state saves $4,000, but that's predicated on the certainty that:
> 
> Welfare benefits will be requested all year
> 
> And, if you fail the drug test, you still get the money it's just given to someone else like your sister or brother.
> 
> So it's a pretty massive failure, and people in the 2% can appeal based on false-positives and legal prescriptions or whatever.


If it saves the state $4,000 for one drug user dropped from the welfare rolls; then, that's good. Expand that to all the drug users dropped, even if it is only 2% and that's great. However, I don't believe that only 2% of recipients are on welfare. The figure I saw on here somewhere 2 out of 40 is actually 5% which is probably still low. Where is the $4k figure coming from? There is no way that a welfare recipient in Florida is only receiving $4k a year. Between rent, EBT, health care, money and whatever else Florida gives them, I would guess that the figure is upwards of $20k. I'm getting that figure from the things I pay for that they are getting for free. Rent alone is going to be at least $5k a year. Add in health care and everything else given enough time to research the figures you will hit $20k easily.

As far as giving it to another family member, that's a flaw with the way the subsidies are paid out not with the drug testing system. False positives should also not be an issue. If you're on prescription meds, you bring a list with you. The I ate a poppy seed bagel argument or the guy next to me was smoking are not grounds to appeal.


----------



## Guest

ImperialGuard said:


> Florida's drug tests for people receiving welfare benefits could cost taxpayers millions and lead to a lawsuit from the ACLU. | wtsp.com
> 
> This says the state saves $4,000, but that's predicated on the certainty that:
> 
> Welfare benefits will be requested all year
> 
> And, if you fail the drug test, you still get the money it's just given to someone else like your sister or brother.
> 
> So it's a pretty massive failure, and people in the 2% can appeal based on false-positives and legal prescriptions or whatever.


So... welcome to reality then. ANY 'reform' program is going to be watered down enough by liberals to make sure it fails, but get enough publicity so rinos can take credit. Its exactly what I said. Implement MY program, and numbers go up drastically.

Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## ImperialGuard

HistoryHound said:


> These responses were hostile? I guess you really haven't been here before.
> 
> Welfare as the concept was intended is not stupid and for the people who truly need it and rely on it as a temporary subsidy while they get their lives back on track it is a necessity. As mentioned earlier it's not just the welfare money that comes into play, it's all the other freebies that go with it. I don't believe that the expense of testing would be more than is saved by yanking all subsidies to someone who fails the test. Not to mention, that it would benefit those people who are honestly in need by freeing up services for them. It would also go a long way in changing the negative public perception that leaches have created which is unfortunately being shared by the honest folk in the system.
> 
> If it saves the state $4,000 for one drug user dropped from the welfare rolls; then, that's good. Expand that to all the drug users dropped, even if it is only 2% and that's great. However, I don't believe that only 2% of recipients are on welfare. The figure I saw on here somewhere 2 out of 40 is actually 5% which is probably still low. Where is the $4k figure coming from? There is no way that a welfare recipient in Florida is only receiving $4k a year. Between rent, EBT, health care, money and whatever else Florida gives them, I would guess that the figure is upwards of $20k. I'm getting that figure from the things I pay for that they are getting for free. Rent alone is going to be at least $5k a year. Add in health care and everything else given enough time to research the figures you will hit $20k easily.
> 
> As far as giving it to another family member, that's a flaw with the way the subsidies are paid out not with the drug testing system. False positives should also not be an issue. If you're on prescription meds, you bring a list with you. The I ate a poppy seed bagel argument or the guy next to me was smoking are not grounds to appeal.


The 2 out of 40 was a small investigation done in the first link I posted. The second was the entire state I believe.


----------



## lofu

I thought you were leaving?


----------



## ImperialGuard

Wolfman said:


> IG, you have not answered me yet. Have you spoken out against drug testing for police, firefighters and our military? Who *do* you support drug testing for? Athletes? Airline pilots? Your child's pediatrician? Your surgeon? The guy who designs or welds the bridges you drive over? Are drugs only an issue when someone is actually under the influence of them, or is a pattern of drug use cause for concern? Do you feel the "war on drugs" is a waste of funds? Should drugs be legalized and taxed? If drugs were legalized, would the cartels and trafficking networks just hang it up and get straight jobs, or find other crime in which to engage? Would not taxation of drug profits make the government no better than the street pushers that are out there today, profiting from the addictions and weakness of the vulnerable?
> 
> ANY drug testing has its cost borne by someone, and eventually it all comes down to the consumer so spare us the "taxpayer" claptrap. The expense is not the issue here, I want to hear your philosophies in general. I think you're very young, idealistic and like so many of this generation look only towards immediate absolutes and fail to look forward and consider long-term ramifications and realities.


I'm against drug testing across the board unless it's specifically on the spot, unless someone's failed on the spot then perhaps randoms in the future may be necessary.

Pattern of drug use can be a concern, but isn't always. A guy who is a cashier at Target being drug tested is rather stupid.

Soldier's already do drugs despite drug tests, so it doesn't do too much. Drug tests are also very easy to beat.

The war on drugs is a waste of funds, yes. It's failed miserably and no one can say otherwise.

Legalized and taxed? In terms of hemp/cannabis, yes absolutely. Hell, the Constitution is printed on hemp and it could be a multi-billion dollar industry for the US.

Doing drugs does not necessarily make one an addict or weak whatsoever.

In 99% of cases, if a person smokes a joint on their day off it should have no bearing on their job. If they do it while working and are suspected of us, then the drug test should be applicable with probable cause. Blanket testing everyone (like school students) is a guilty-until-proven-innocent thing and totally un-American.

Alright, I answered all the questions. Someone else can debate it if they wish, I don't feel like defending my views against an onslaught of questions. Requires too much effort and time. Hell, I just rushed through these and didn't even really flesh them out.


----------



## cc3915

ImperialGuard said:


> Alright, I answered all the questions. Someone else can debate it if they wish, I don't feel like defending my views against an onslaught of questions. Requires too much effort and time.


In other words, it's 420 time. Right? Go eat a bag of Doritos.


----------



## ImperialGuard

cc3915 said:


> In other words, it's 420 time. Right? Go eat a bag of Doritos.


No thanks, I don't smoke.


----------



## ImperialGuard

Wolfman said:


> ...and this is where your argument fails. You would support government intervention and profiting so long as it allows intoxication, yet you do not support taxation for the purpose of ensuring appropriate expenditure of welfare funding. Again, the generational indicia of hypocrisy and selfishness becoems apparent.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a bit of idealism, son, however the reason you have two ears and one mouth is so that you may listen twice as much as you speak. There are decades of bona fide experience and insight on this board, don't be blinded to what it has to offer you. You have potential, but like a chess player you must be able to look ahead several moves or you will suffer defeat. If you're going to have a closed mind, do us all a favor and let your mouth join it. If you think that debating and defending your viewpoints is too much time and effort, then you have already lost; do not expect anyone to ever take you seriously.


No hypocrisy, I was actually joking about hating welfare. I said it to see what the reaction would be, personally I don't care if I pay into welfare.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy

Ugh... Really guy? 

Following in the long line of moronic liberals that have posted their logic deprived opinions here before you, I anticipated your last statement the moment Delta called you out and you refused to answer. 

You're not the first, and you certainly won't be the last liberal to get backed into a corner, have absolutely ZERO to stand on... and start to backpedal. 

Typical.


----------



## Guest

ImperialGuard, how can we miss you when you won't go away?


----------



## Herrdoktor

I can't imagine how much wasted resources would be needed to ensure property testing procedures. In the long run I doubt the state would be saving money.


----------



## HistoryHound

ImperialGuard said:


> I'm against drug testing across the board unless it's specifically on the spot, unless someone's failed on the spot then perhaps randoms in the future may be necessary.
> 
> Are you against it or are you for it under what you believe are the right circumstances? On what spot are you referring to? A random test should be done immediately, not scheduled so it would be done "on the spot." You get the call and you go for the test without being given enough time for the drugs to get out of your system.
> 
> Pattern of drug use can be a concern, but isn't always. A guy who is a cashier at Target being drug tested is rather stupid.
> 
> Did you get fired from or not get the job at Target because you didn't pass the pee test? One reason why you would want to drug test employees, especially those who handle money, is because drug users are a liability. There is greater risk that they could steal from you so that they can support their habit. There is a greater risk of them injuring themselves or someone else due to their impairment. There is the risk that they could engage in selling/buying on company time. All of those are affect the bottom line and are a major pain for employers to deal with.
> 
> Soldier's already do drugs despite drug tests, so it doesn't do too much. Drug tests are also very easy to beat.
> 
> What the hell? Who brought soldiers into the conversation? Now you're just throwing things out there hoping they stick. Give up, not every blind squirrel finds a nut some starve. Please enlighten us on how a random test, administered immediately and properly monitored is easy to beat. If you've never seen it, the look on someone's face when you tell them that they failed a drug test they knew was coming is priceless.
> 
> The war on drugs is a waste of funds, yes. It's failed miserably and no one can say otherwise.
> 
> This is a topic for a thread of its own. There are a lot of things that need to be done differently to put a dent in drug use in this country. You should take the opportunity to prove yourself and start a thread on the subject outlining your argument. Or are you only repeating things that you've heard from others?
> 
> Legalized and taxed? In terms of hemp/cannabis, yes absolutely. Hell, the Constitution is printed on hemp and it could be a multi-billion dollar industry for the US.
> 
> Doing drugs does not necessarily make one an addict or weak whatsoever.
> 
> I'm lumping these two together because they have been discussed to death. Do a search.
> 
> In 99% of cases, if a person smokes a joint on their day off it should have no bearing on their job. If they do it while working and are suspected of us, then the drug test should be applicable with probable cause. Blanket testing everyone (like school students) is a guilty-until-proven-innocent thing and totally un-American.
> 
> Oh but it actually does. See above comments on the impact of drug use on employers. That was the abridged version. We're not talking about blanket testing EVERYONE. We're talking about testing people on welfare as a condition of receiving benefits.
> 
> Alright, I answered all the questions. Someone else can debate it if they wish, I don't feel like defending my views against an onslaught of questions. Requires too much effort and time. Hell, I just rushed through these and didn't even really flesh them out.
> 
> As Wolfman already pointed out, no one is going to ever take you seriously if you can't stand up for your beliefs. My only question is, are these your beliefs? You come across as someone who watches a lot of Bill Mahr.





ImperialGuard said:


> No hypocrisy, I was actually joking about hating welfare. I said it to see what the reaction would be, personally I don't care if I pay into welfare.


Are you John Kerry? You might not care if you pay into welfare, but the majority of working people do. Why should people who work hard to support their families have to struggle to also support the families of people who choose not to work? Now if the system were revamped and functioned as a temporary safety net as it was originally intended; then, I don't think you would find too many people opposed to paying for it.



Herrdoktor said:


> I can't imagine how much wasted resources would be needed to ensure property testing procedures. In the long run I doubt the state would be saving money.


Initially you might have an increase in the resources needed, but not in the long run. There are plenty of labs out there that already do the testing. The system is already in place. All the states need to do is contract with a few of them.


----------



## Johnny Law

You don't care if you pay into welfare? You ought to, they just boosted the retirement age so you'll be paying into it longer so some slacker asshole can suck it out because he has a bad case of the "nerves".


----------



## MaDuce

Come on guys it's not like people get drug tested when they want to get a job and make money the legitimate way. Besides testing would violate the constitutional right to other people's money. I mean how else are people on welafre gonna pull themselves out of poverty if they can't afford lotto tickets?


----------



## CJIS

Deseret News


Welfare drug testing halted MiamiHerald.com - Rebecca Catalanello - ‎1 hour ago‎

The state's law requiring welfare applicants to pass drug tests was temporarily blocked by a federal judge, who indicated it likely violates the Fourth Amendment.


----------



## Guest

How the hell does it violate the Fourth Amendment, but my pre-employment and for cause drug screenings don't?

Welfare leech and I both want something....he/she wants a free handout, I want a police job. Both require a drug test as the price of admission. 

How is leech's test a violation and mine isn't?


----------



## Guest

USMCMP5811 said:


> Because you didn't and will never vote for the massiah.....


I don't know if that's the real reason, but the accuracy of your statement cannot be repudiated, good sir.


----------



## LGriffin

Delta784 said:


> How the hell does it violate the Fourth Amendment, but my pre-employment and for cause drug screenings don't?
> Welfare leech and I both want something....he/she wants a free handout, I want a police job. Both require a drug test as the price of admission.
> How is leech's test a violation and mine isn't?


We give up our rights when we take the job...
I've seen some crazy shit but what would you say is the most flagrant abuse of welfare?


----------



## Guest

LGriffin said:


> We give up our rights when we take the job...
> I've seen some crazy shit but what would you say is the most flagrant abuse of welfare?


Leeches who have never paid a penny into Social Security who still collect SSI/SSDI checks.


----------



## LGriffin

Delta784 said:


> Leeches who have never paid a penny into Social Security who still collect SSI/SSDI checks.


+1, they're a lag on every system of gov't and most can run faster with a DVD player than the fastest guy in my mpoc...


----------



## HistoryHound

Considering I have to pee in a cup upon request just to get my pain meds so that I can somewhat function, I don't see a problem with drug testing welfare or SSDI recipients. Now if I could only get the asshole insurance company to approve my last hope treatment which if it works would allow me to get off pain meds.


----------



## GARDA




----------



## LGriffin

HistoryHound said:


> Considering I have to pee in a cup upon request just to get my pain meds so that I can somewhat function, I don't see a problem with drug testing welfare or SSDI recipients. Now if I could only get the asshole insurance company to approve my last hope treatment which if it works would allow me to get off pain meds.


Squatting over a cup at a public bathroom sucks but sitting in the waiting room in uniform next to scumbags before you have to pee in said cup is much worse.


----------

