Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

96% of Florida welfare cash recipients pass drug tests.Follow

#52 Aug 29 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,756 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So do you want people with a drug problem to starve to death or just steal stuff until we jail them and have to feed and house them?


No silly you're supposed to hang them... Smiley: oyvey

For serious though, I'm not really sure there's a best answer for how to deal with the people who are just a drain on society.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#53 Aug 29 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,055 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So do you want people with a drug problem to starve to death or just steal stuff until we jail them and have to feed and house them?

False dichotomy is false.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#54 Aug 29 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Default
**
501 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
Would you support drug tests for drivers licenses? Bus passes?



Personally, I think we should drug test every Over The Road truck driver and fire anyone whose system wasn't full of crank or meth or blow.


Seriously, 80,000lbs of rolling death, driving 10-11 hours a day, everyday. Dem boys need to be wide the **** awake if ya ask me, but no one did, so I'll just mosey along now.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#55 Aug 29 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
More importantly, since tax money goes to all government employees, does gbaji want them all tested. too?

Howsabout it gbaji? If a gov employee tests positive we fire them and they cant get any gov job after, right?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#56 Aug 29 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
I have a question. What happens when one of these people fails a drug test? Are they just cut off, or offered treatment or something?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#57 Aug 29 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
someproteinguy wrote:


For serious though, I'm not really sure there's a best answer for how to deal with the people who are just a drain on society.
For the record, gbaji advocates letting them die.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#58 Aug 29 2011 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So do you want people with a drug problem to starve to death or just steal stuff until we jail them and have to feed and house them?


No. We want people with drug problems to address the problems so that their lives will improve. The alternative is what? Giving people with drug problems free food and housing anyway without even attempting to get them to quit?

Using the statistics in the OP, one solution helps nudge 96% of those receiving welfare to not use drugs, perhaps helping them improve their lives in the long run, with the downside that 4% wont get government benefits and may end out in jail. The other solution gives up on 100% of them.

I'll ask again: Why do you hate poor people? Smiley: frown
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Aug 29 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:


For serious though, I'm not really sure there's a best answer for how to deal with the people who are just a drain on society.
For the record, gbaji advocates letting them die.


No. I believe that giving them a free ride is the worst approach to a situation which doesn't have any perfectly good answer. You're playing the "your solution isn't perfect, so do it my way" game. In the real world, it's about which solution is "better".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Aug 29 2011 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
If the people who fail are given an option for treatment, I'd be fine with it. Addiction isn't something just solved by snapping your fingers.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#61 Aug 29 2011 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
Demea wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So do you want people with a drug problem to starve to death or just steal stuff until we jail them and have to feed and house them?

False dichotomy is false.
That's fair, they could just drop their addiction just like that, and become normal, productive members of society. It happens all the time, amirite?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#62 Aug 29 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:


For serious though, I'm not really sure there's a best answer for how to deal with the people who are just a drain on society.
For the record, gbaji advocates letting them die.


No. I believe that giving them a free ride is the worst approach to a situation which doesn't have any perfectly good answer. You're playing the "your solution isn't perfect, so do it my way" game. In the real world, it's about which solution is "better".


No. You are lying. We all know your view on the poor.

Nice try, though.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#63 Aug 29 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
If the people who fail are given an option for treatment, I'd be fine with it. Addiction isn't something just solved by snapping your fingers.


/shrug

It's also not something solved by just ignoring it and handing people welfare checks. Like I said, it's the better of a host of imperfect solutions. At least this way, those who are borderline and can pull themselves out of their drug use have a better chance of doing so if they know that it's a condition of the help they are receiving, while those who can't or wont stop using can at least be identified and/or are forced into a set of actions in response to their own addiction issues.

I'm most concerned about nudging that larger percentage on the right path. Helping those in the second group is important, but not if the process we use to help them results in more people ending out in their condition in the first place. It's one of the issues I have with most social safety nets. They help the symptoms of a problem, but tend to make the cause more frequent. This is at least a step in the right direction IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Aug 29 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
No. You are lying. We all know your view on the poor.


Well, we know your version of my view at least! Thats something I suppose.

Edited, Aug 29th 2011 3:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Aug 29 2011 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
How do we make sure the the kids of these people get food? Should we start building some more orphanages?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#66 Aug 29 2011 at 4:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
How do we make sure the the kids of these people get food? Should we start building some more orphanages?


You're still just looking at the symptoms. You're also still playing the "your solution isn't perfect" game. What's the alternative? We actively expend resources to help keep children in homes with drug addicted parents? If the cost of getting a thousand parents to stop using drugs for the sake of ensuring that their children are fed and housed is that 20 parents will continue to use drugs, but now can't get welfare and will likely lose their children somehow, I'm frankly not seeing that as a problem.

Yeah. It sucks for the kids of those 20 parents, but it would have sucked for them anyway. And it may just be better to get them out of those homes earlier rather than later. And in the meantime, we potentially make things much much better for many times more kids. It's not "perfect", but it's "better".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Aug 29 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,756 posts
When choosing between separating kids from their parents, or housing those kids with their drug-addicted parents, I'm not sure how anyone could use the word 'better' for either option. Seems like one of those things a sociologist could study for dozens of years with mixed results. A general policy ignoring specifics and what not. Not that we really have the resources atm to tailor a solution to every situation...

*ramble ramble*

*loses train of thought*

Edited, Aug 29th 2011 3:55pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#68 Aug 29 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,361 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So do you want people with a drug problem to starve to death or just steal stuff until we jail them and have to feed and house them?


Would be less costly and less cruel to just let them overdose on drugs in that case.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#69Princess ShadorVIII, Posted: Aug 29 2011 at 6:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Indeed. Most problems, when left alone, have a way of working themselves out.
#70 Aug 29 2011 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Shador, why do you even bother having opinions?

Serious question.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#71 Aug 29 2011 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
We also have to address the issue of what can be called a "drug problem". Is it the guy who works 50 hours a week and smokes pot in the evenings, or the woman with three kids who collects welfare and drinks a liter of vodka a day?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#72 Aug 29 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
When choosing between separating kids from their parents, or housing those kids with their drug-addicted parents, I'm not sure how anyone could use the word 'better' for either option.


But that goes in both directions, right? Neither is an ideal result, but we are ultimately making that choice anyway. Looking the other way and pretending that we haven't made a choice by default just seems incredibly stupid. We're kidding ourselves.

And again, this only addresses the case of parents who can't or wont stop using drugs (even if just sufficiently to pass the tests). For the other 96%, we've either not impacted them at all *or* we've provided that nudge to not use drugs (or use them less). That's a net positive IMO. So we have a significant positive on one hand (some likely large number of kids who will be with their parents, but who's parents wont be using drugs who might have otherwise), and at worst a break even among the 4% who will still use drugs.

Even if the results for taking children out of a drug users home versus keeping them in that home and providing them welfare are equal (and I'm pretty sure they aren't), we should still do this. You'd have to show that the negative effects of forcing that smaller group into choosing their drugs or their children is so much greater that it outweighs the general benefits to the larger group. And I just don't think you (or anyone) can make a strong case for that.

Quote:
Seems like one of those things a sociologist could study for dozens of years with mixed results. A general policy ignoring specifics and what not. Not that we really have the resources atm to tailor a solution to every situation...


Yup. So in the absence of overwhelmingly strong evidence that kids are better off living off welfare in the home of a drug addicted parent than being separated from that parent, we should do the drug tests.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Aug 29 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
The best solution is abortions all around!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Aug 29 2011 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Debalic wrote:
We also have to address the issue of what can be called a "drug problem". Is it the guy who works 50 hours a week and smokes pot in the evenings, or the woman with three kids who collects welfare and drinks a liter of vodka a day?


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the guy working 50 hours a week isn't collecting a welfare check, so it's not quite the dilemma you make it out to be.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Aug 29 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
We also have to address the issue of what can be called a "drug problem". Is it the guy who works 50 hours a week and smokes pot in the evenings, or the woman with three kids who collects welfare and drinks a liter of vodka a day?


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the guy working 50 hours a week isn't collecting a welfare check, so it's not quite the dilemma you make it out to be.

Sure it is. The guy gets a drug test sprung on him, bam he's no longer a productive member of society. But mummy dearest can drink till her liver's pickled and keep pulling in those checks.

Sorry, I guess I strayed from the original topic and went with the system-wide drug testing.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#76 Aug 29 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,576 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the guy working 50 hours a week isn't collecting a welfare check, so it's not quite the dilemma you make it out to be.

Just so you know, working 50 hours a week every week of the year at minimum wage in most states puts you below the poverty line for a family of four (assuming this person is the sole income provider).
#77Princess ShadorVIII, Posted: Aug 29 2011 at 7:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't understand...
#78 Aug 29 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
We also have to address the issue of what can be called a "drug problem". Is it the guy who works 50 hours a week and smokes pot in the evenings, or the woman with three kids who collects welfare and drinks a liter of vodka a day?


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the guy working 50 hours a week isn't collecting a welfare check, so it's not quite the dilemma you make it out to be.

Sure it is. The guy gets a drug test sprung on him, bam he's no longer a productive member of society. But mummy dearest can drink till her liver's pickled and keep pulling in those checks.

Sorry, I guess I strayed from the original topic and went with the system-wide drug testing.


Yeah. While a couple people tossed out the "mandatory drug tests for all!" idea, I was just talking about drug tests as a requirement for obtaining government assistance for housing and food. Those really are two different cases and we shouldn't mix and match them in a single comparison.


But since you mentioned it, it's unlikely for someone who's employed in the private sector to have his employer implement a drug testing policy without any warning at all. Odds are, he was hired with that policy in place or was given tons of warning that it was coming. So the choice is still his. He can take drugs and risk losing his job, or not take them and not risk losing it. If he choose to take drugs and ends out losing his job, how does that make the rest of us responsible for his plight?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Aug 29 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the guy working 50 hours a week isn't collecting a welfare check, so it's not quite the dilemma you make it out to be.

Just so you know, working 50 hours a week every week of the year at minimum wage in most states puts you below the poverty line for a family of four (assuming this person is the sole income provider).


/shrug

Maybe the fact that he's smoking pot every night is why he's managed to end out as the sole income provider for a family of four, and is somehow still working 50 hours a week in a minimum wage job. Even right now, with jobs quite scarce, you pretty much have to be a complete ***** up (or a young student) to not be able to land some kind of job that pays more than minimum wage (and likely a few dollars an hour more). That's not to say that there aren't some people out there trying really hard to get ahead, but who just can't get a good job with sufficient pay and hours to get by, but I don't see how smoking pot every night is helping them either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Aug 29 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Excellent
I'm all for empathy testing.

gbaji will be cranking handjobs at the SD zoo enterance to make ends meets after that test
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#81 Aug 29 2011 at 11:18 PM Rating: Excellent
**
580 posts
Princess ShadorVIII wrote:
Ok, maybe the whole "make them pay for it" was wrong. Nah, @#%^ maybe, it is wrong. k?

I think maybe illicit drugs aren't the real problem. Here's what frustrates - the legal addictions - I see people in the "poor part of town" around here, most of whom get some type of government assistance, all the time buying beer, cigs, and lotto. Granted, none of those things are illegal and so there's no way to stop such irresponsable behavior. Still it frustrates me and countless others to know that my tax dollar is going to these people who waste their money on these addictions. If they spent that money on things they needed, they might not need as much assistance.




I lived in the poor part of town making 50k a year it had the cheapest rent. The poor part of town might not had been that poor 20 years ago. You do know some people do like to stay in their family home or move back to it. Not every "poor part of town" in every city is raging with drive bys and crack dealers on every corner or welfare.

Though now I'm on SSDI been on it since 2008(26 at the time) cause I thought it was a simple chest cold and didn't take a day off to see a doctor, boy did I pay for that. One LAVD and a new heart latter. Why did I bring this up its simple you might be young healthy today but sometimes Life steps in and screws you out the blue. I was even in the heart ward with a young mother who had a planned pregnancy that damaged her heart so much she was on the list with me. So think about that the shoe can be switched around on you over night.
____________________________
.
#82 Aug 30 2011 at 6:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Even right now, with jobs quite scarce, you pretty much have to be a complete ***** up (or a young student) to not be able to land some kind of job that pays more than minimum wage (and likely a few dollars an hour more).

Oh, good lord Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Aug 30 2011 at 6:23 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Is testing really common practice down there? I've never heard of it being done up here except in law enforcement. I mean, what the **** do they care what you're doing in your free time?
In my org. we have 5 guys that are licensed tankermen. They have to have the license (issued by the USCG) to operate big oil collection barges we own. For the license to be current they have to be drug tested initially (they also can't be color-blind) and then remain in a quarterly, random drug testing pool. They each seem to come up for testing once or twice a year.

Our testing is mandated by USCG but they defer to the rules and regs of the federal DOT program.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#84 Aug 30 2011 at 6:31 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
And what the @#%^ happened to innocent until proven guilty? No one should be required to pay up front to test for something that if they were guilty of it they should be charged and trialed for. It's totally illogical. It's even breaking the rule that people have a right not to convict themselves. They have a right to silence, both outside of a trial and during a trial.


Not that I don't agree that there are issues with random drug tests, it's not the same as if we were randomly testing random people within the whole population for the purpose of charging them with a crime. The idea is that you are attempting to gain something (employment, food stamps, welfare check, etc), and a condition of that is to take a drug test. You're free to not take the job, or not take the welfare check. So it's not a violation of your rights. It's a condition to get something you want.

It would be a violation of my rights for the government to force me to write scripts for 8 hours a day. However, it's completely reasonable for my employer to require me to do this as a condition for me getting a paycheck. Same deal with drug tests.
What does the country gain from this testing?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#85 Aug 30 2011 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,261 posts
gbaji wrote:
[quote=Admiral Lubriderm]Using the statistics in the OP, one solution helps nudge 96% of those receiving welfare to not use drugs, perhaps helping them improve their lives in the long run, with the downside that 4% wont get government benefits and may end out in jail. The other solution gives up on 100% of them.


ITT: 100% of welfare applicants want to use drugs and require a nudge in the opposite direction. Every. Single. One.

That 4% aren't going to be able to quit on a dime, addiction doesn't work that way, they are going to have to turn to crime to survive, which will put them in prison after a government paid public defender handles their court case. Prisons and the justice system cost a heck of a lot more than welfare. There is nothing of value in drug testing welfare applicants. You want people off of welfare you make welfare just barely enough to survive on and provide job training programs, interview clothing etc to get them back on their feet.
#86 Aug 30 2011 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
And what the @#%^ happened to innocent until proven guilty? No one should be required to pay up front to test for something that if they were guilty of it they should be charged and trialed for. It's totally illogical. It's even breaking the rule that people have a right not to convict themselves. They have a right to silence, both outside of a trial and during a trial.


Not that I don't agree that there are issues with random drug tests, it's not the same as if we were randomly testing random people within the whole population for the purpose of charging them with a crime. The idea is that you are attempting to gain something (employment, food stamps, welfare check, etc), and a condition of that is to take a drug test. You're free to not take the job, or not take the welfare check. So it's not a violation of your rights. It's a condition to get something you want.

It would be a violation of my rights for the government to force me to write scripts for 8 hours a day. However, it's completely reasonable for my employer to require me to do this as a condition for me getting a paycheck. Same deal with drug tests.
What does the country gain from this testing?


Padding the pockets of the testing companies.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#87 Aug 30 2011 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,297 posts
did they test for jenkem?
____________________________
hvergelmir, make sure your sarcasmometer is properly calibrated.
#88 Aug 30 2011 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,756 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
And what the @#%^ happened to innocent until proven guilty? No one should be required to pay up front to test for something that if they were guilty of it they should be charged and trialed for. It's totally illogical. It's even breaking the rule that people have a right not to convict themselves. They have a right to silence, both outside of a trial and during a trial.


Not that I don't agree that there are issues with random drug tests, it's not the same as if we were randomly testing random people within the whole population for the purpose of charging them with a crime. The idea is that you are attempting to gain something (employment, food stamps, welfare check, etc), and a condition of that is to take a drug test. You're free to not take the job, or not take the welfare check. So it's not a violation of your rights. It's a condition to get something you want.

It would be a violation of my rights for the government to force me to write scripts for 8 hours a day. However, it's completely reasonable for my employer to require me to do this as a condition for me getting a paycheck. Same deal with drug tests.
What does the country gain from this testing?


Padding the pockets of the testing companies.


Great way to secure political contributions for next election. Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#89 Aug 30 2011 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
I understand where gbaji is coming from (I think I do anyway) and I'm not in disagreement.

That's not to say I'm for testing given the criteria he's outlined, but I'm certainly not against it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#90 Aug 30 2011 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
My biggest problem with the Florida testing thing is that the state is paying for it, and the Governor's wife just happens to be a major shareholder in the testing facility.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#91 Aug 30 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
I certainly would find this whole thing much more reasonable if it were for unemployment insurance, but food? That is just too far for me. Why not bar medicare/medicaid for smokers? That could actually result in decent cost savings.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#92 Aug 30 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
And what the @#%^ happened to innocent until proven guilty? No one should be required to pay up front to test for something that if they were guilty of it they should be charged and trialed for. It's totally illogical. It's even breaking the rule that people have a right not to convict themselves. They have a right to silence, both outside of a trial and during a trial.


Not that I don't agree that there are issues with random drug tests, it's not the same as if we were randomly testing random people within the whole population for the purpose of charging them with a crime. The idea is that you are attempting to gain something (employment, food stamps, welfare check, etc), and a condition of that is to take a drug test. You're free to not take the job, or not take the welfare check. So it's not a violation of your rights. It's a condition to get something you want.

It would be a violation of my rights for the government to force me to write scripts for 8 hours a day. However, it's completely reasonable for my employer to require me to do this as a condition for me getting a paycheck. Same deal with drug tests.
What does the country gain from this testing?


We reduce the likelihood that our tax dollars are being spent subsidizing the very things which may be creating the need for the assistance in the first place? I thought the objective here was pretty obvious. You honestly can't figure out why we might want to make sure that people receiving public assistance aren't using illegal drugs?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Aug 30 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Using the statistics in the OP, one solution helps nudge 96% of those receiving welfare to not use drugs, perhaps helping them improve their lives in the long run, with the downside that 4% wont get government benefits and may end out in jail. The other solution gives up on 100% of them.


ITT: 100% of welfare applicants want to use drugs and require a nudge in the opposite direction. Every. Single. One.


/whoosh

We don't know how many people within that group may use or want to use drugs. Nor can we know which individuals within the group might be using at any given time. However, we do presumably want to maximize the odds that any individual within that group can/will get themselves out of that group and become productive citizens. Thus, if we apply a blanket rule, we minimize the number of people who might use drugs, thus maximizing the odds that drug use will become an obstacle to them getting out off the assistance.


It's that same difference of viewpoint I talked about earlier. Should our focus be on helping those in need, or working to minimize the number of people who are in need? The system will work better if we tailor the way we do the first so as to accomplish the second as well.

Quote:
That 4% aren't going to be able to quit on a dime, addiction doesn't work that way, they are going to have to turn to crime to survive, which will put them in prison after a government paid public defender handles their court case. Prisons and the justice system cost a heck of a lot more than welfare.


So we just give up on them? You're also using incredibly short sighted thinking. Prisons and the justice system almost always cost more than the cost of the crime itself. Guy breaks into a home and steals $5000 worth of stuff, and gets sent to jail for a year, costing us $35000. If you're going to use the cost argument in this case, you need to argue it for all cases.

Perhaps there's another factor you're not considering?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 Aug 30 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
So alcohol abuse is fine if you are collecting public assistance just because *bing* someone decided that it's legal?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#95 Aug 30 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So alcohol abuse is fine if you are collecting public assistance just because *bing* someone decided that it's legal?

That was my point as well, but apparently irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I guess this isn't the place for the Legalize It argument.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#96 Aug 30 2011 at 3:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Debalic wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
So alcohol abuse is fine if you are collecting public assistance just because *bing* someone decided that it's legal?

That was my point as well, but apparently irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I guess this isn't the place for the Legalize It argument.
Why not? It's relevant.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#97 Aug 30 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
It's legal, so it doesn't matter. Pot is illegal, so you choose whether or not you want to be a drain on society.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#98 Aug 31 2011 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
That 4% aren't going to be able to quit on a dime, addiction doesn't work that way, they are going to have to turn to crime to survive, which will put them in prison after a government paid public defender handles their court case. Prisons and the justice system cost a heck of a lot more than welfare.


So we just give up on them? You're also using incredibly short sighted thinking. Prisons and the justice system almost always cost more than the cost of the crime itself.
Not giving them any welfare or support sure seems like you're giving up on them. Abandoning them completely in fact.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#99 Aug 31 2011 at 2:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
That 4% aren't going to be able to quit on a dime, addiction doesn't work that way, they are going to have to turn to crime to survive, which will put them in prison after a government paid public defender handles their court case. Prisons and the justice system cost a heck of a lot more than welfare.


So we just give up on them? You're also using incredibly short sighted thinking. Prisons and the justice system almost always cost more than the cost of the crime itself.
Not giving them any welfare or support sure seems like you're giving up on them. Abandoning them completely in fact.


It's called "tough love". Smiley: grin
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Aug 31 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
It's called "tough love". Smiley: grin
We all know about the type of tough love that you are into, you don't need to remind us.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#101 Sep 01 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
And what the @#%^ happened to innocent until proven guilty? No one should be required to pay up front to test for something that if they were guilty of it they should be charged and trialed for. It's totally illogical. It's even breaking the rule that people have a right not to convict themselves. They have a right to silence, both outside of a trial and during a trial.


Not that I don't agree that there are issues with random drug tests, it's not the same as if we were randomly testing random people within the whole population for the purpose of charging them with a crime. The idea is that you are attempting to gain something (employment, food stamps, welfare check, etc), and a condition of that is to take a drug test. You're free to not take the job, or not take the welfare check. So it's not a violation of your rights. It's a condition to get something you want.

It would be a violation of my rights for the government to force me to write scripts for 8 hours a day. However, it's completely reasonable for my employer to require me to do this as a condition for me getting a paycheck. Same deal with drug tests.
What does the country gain from this testing?


We reduce the likelihood that our tax dollars are being spent subsidizing the very things which may be creating the need for the assistance in the first place? I thought the objective here was pretty obvious. You honestly can't figure out why we might want to make sure that people receiving public assistance aren't using illegal drugs?
You're making another big-*** assumption. You're assuming that federal welfare dollars are buying drugs. People usually get assistance because they're injured or disabled in some way and unable to work, not because they're addicts.

Sure, some money does buy drugs. Some probably buy guns too. Why are we not searching all the homes of welfare recipients? Some money likely buys hookers, some other's may fraudulently spend their food-stamps on booze. I bet lots of medicaid monies is spent on legal but unnecessary drugs too.

So, no I honestly can't figure out why anyone would want to spend billions of dollars on a program to make it less equitable, less efficient and extremely intrusive. Why not take that money and route out the fraud in the system?



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 63 All times are in CDT
DSD, Snorre, someproteinguy, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (59)