Metal Sludge Gossip Board

unemployment, or any other social service recipients??

for it...against it? if against...why?

Never thought about it, but it sounds like a good way to mire an already overloaded and inefficient system down with even more red tape and cost.

I'd support it, but I'd sooner fund somebody's drug habit until they kill themselves than allow another woman with 8 kids from having another one that's going to live off the government for 18 years.

Drunk Kennedy wrote:unemployment, or any other social service recipients??

for it...against it? if against...why?

Damn right.

I don't think it is a good idea. I'm all for limiting the time spent on welfare and tighter verification restrictions, but that would be an invasion of privacy.

upinsmoke wrote:I don't think it is a good idea. I'm all for limiting the time spent on welfare and tighter verification restrictions, but that would be an invasion of privacy.

Well, the government can't grab you out of your house and drug test you, which WOULD be an invasion of privacy. But if you're depending on them for income, IMO you have to give up a bit of that.

How is finding evidence that you broke the law a violation of your privacy?

JakeYonkel wrote:

upinsmoke wrote:I don't think it is a good idea. I'm all for limiting the time spent on welfare and tighter verification restrictions, but that would be an invasion of privacy.

Well, the government can't grab you out of your house and drug test you, which WOULD be an invasion of privacy. But if you're depending on them for income, IMO you have to give up a bit of that.

Don't you have to declare your liabilities/debts when filing ?

Drug use is illegal, therefore, if you are government-funded, I don't have an issue with mandatory drug testing, just as I have no issue with cutting your funding if you are found guilty of a crime (even a "victimless" one such as prostitution). Plus, from a logical standpoint, if you test positive for drugs, then it is likely that your funding subsidized those drugs, whether directly or indirectly.

VinnieKulick wrote:How is finding evidence that you broke the law a violation of your privacy?

Is it a crime with victims? If not -- leave it alone. What next? Drug-testing for a driver's license, marriage certificate or SS card? Government shouldn't be in the business of invading every aspect of your personal life. There are enough indicators to otherwise approve or deny benefits. Why make another that invades private life to that measure?

ETA: The cost for a program of that size would also be astronomical. The onus for drug testing should fall on the private sector, unless we're taliking about federal jobs. It is a pointless idea.

OH! It's the "victimless" excuse again.

I don't see how a simple urine test to determine if a person is participating in illegal activity is a VIOLATION! of your rights, when otherwise the thing that's violated is flushed down the toilet.

Many, if not most companies require drug testing for their employees, so this isn't really unprecedented. It's an incentive based thing I guess. Get clean, or don't get government assistance. Theoretically it could help clean some people up and get them back to work. I don't see it working that way though. My issue with it would be the practicalities. It would cost the taxpayers too much money and I think the benefit would be outweighed by the cost.

I am sure those test strips cost less per person receiving welfare than 6 months of payments to a crackhead.

VinnieKulick wrote:OH! It's the "victimless" excuse again.

I don't see how a simple urine test to determine if a person is participating in illegal activity is a VIOLATION! of your rights, when otherwise the thing that's violated is flushed down the toilet.

"Victimless" isn't an excuse. Make rapid return to the work environment the priority, and let the private sector have at it. We don't need yet another red tape law.

VinnieKulick wrote:I am sure those test strips cost less per person receiving welfare than 6 months of payments to a crackhead.

How many people hypothetically tested would be a "crackhead"?

Since so many employers require drug testing, couldn't drug testing for those on welfare be seen as part of the "rapid return to work" justification for welfare? Just throwin' that out there.

(For the record, I feel marijuana should be legal, and taxed.)

NO NO NO! Like most ideas, everything seems great on paper but the last thing we need is another fucked up gov't program.

Always remember, gov't is great to debate and think about but the actual application of most ideas falls tremendously short.

Calexxia wrote:Since so many employers require drug testing, couldn't drug testing for those on welfare be seen as part of the "rapid return to work" justification for welfare? Just throwin' that out there.

(For the record, I feel marijuana should be legal, and taxed.)

I really see no reason for 80% of the drug testing that already goes on. Half of those tested either cheat it, or beat it by not imbibing for a while, so it is a massive waste of company funds right up front. Then, someone wants to translate THAT into another government-mandated industry? What a sliding scale, for a conservative to bitch about government fraud and waste, then turn around and advocate more of it?

upinsmoke wrote:

Calexxia wrote:Since so many employers require drug testing, couldn't drug testing for those on welfare be seen as part of the "rapid return to work" justification for welfare? Just throwin' that out there.

(For the record, I feel marijuana should be legal, and taxed.)

I really see no reason for 80% of the drug testing that already goes on. Half of those tested either cheat it, or beat it by not imbibing for a while, so it is a massive waste of company funds right up front. Then, someone wants to translate THAT into another government-mandated industry? What a sliding scale, for a conservative to bitch about government fraud and waste, then turn around and advocate more of it?

To which conservative are you referring?

Not you. I never thought you were a conservative.

upinsmoke wrote:Not you. I never thought you were a conservative.

Hahah, THANKS!

upinsmoke wrote:

VinnieKulick wrote:I am sure those test strips cost less per person receiving welfare than 6 months of payments to a crackhead.

How many people hypothetically tested would be a "crackhead"?

CRACKHEAD is a generic term that I use for anybody who is a drug abuser.

Crackhead, pothead, pill head, meth head, whatever term you want to use, use it.

And, I am not bitching about the government expanding services to anybody other than the 10% of the population that's getting public assistance.

A simply urine dipstick test is cheap and accurate, and if used to screen out those who are using illegal drugs, SAVES MONEY.

It's neither cheap or reliable. The test itself is cheap, sure, but the organization that has to be put in place to do it sure isn't. Somebody has to moderate it. Somebody has to input the results etc. Come on dude, it's the government. When have they ever done anything that was "cheap"? As to reliability, I know plenty of people who get around mandatory drug tests all the time. Urine tests are easily manipulated. There are far more effective and reliable testing methods, sure, but they're not even close to cheap.

VinnieKulick wrote:

upinsmoke wrote:How many people hypothetically tested would be a "crackhead"?

CRACKHEAD is a generic term that I use for anybody who is a drug abuser.

Crackhead, pothead, pill head, meth head, whatever term you want to use, use it.

And, I am not bitching about the government expanding services to anybody other than the 10% of the population that's getting public assistance.

A simply urine dipstick test is cheap and accurate, and if used to screen out those who are using illegal drugs, SAVES MONEY.

It isn't accurate or cheap when so many people can beat them in the first place.

Hmmm, I didn't realize crackhead was synonymous with pot smokers or drinkers, lol. Yep, I included drinkers, too. Let's throw in smokers and eaters while we're at it. Oh, let's not forget all the PORNO addicts, too. All these things could be considered life-destroying drugs, if the abuser won't stop. Why stop with just making a short list of drugs illegal, why not go for everything that could be considered harmful?

Illegal drugs are already illegal. We aren't talking about instituting new drug laws here. It's welfare reform, not drug enforcement.

bane wrote:Illegal drugs are already illegal. We aren't talking about instituting new drug laws here. It's welfare reform, not drug enforcement.

I realize this. I'm addressing VK's attitude -- "They're illegal, dammit!!11!!1" posts. "Oh no, sumbuddy smoked the pots!!!111!, They're on the welfare!!!!11!"

upinsmoke wrote:

VinnieKulick wrote:

upinsmoke wrote:How many people hypothetically tested would be a "crackhead"?

CRACKHEAD is a generic term that I use for anybody who is a drug abuser.

Crackhead, pothead, pill head, meth head, whatever term you want to use, use it.

And, I am not bitching about the government expanding services to anybody other than the 10% of the population that's getting public assistance.

A simply urine dipstick test is cheap and accurate, and if used to screen out those who are using illegal drugs, SAVES MONEY.

It isn't accurate or cheap when so many people can beat them in the first place.

Hmmm, I didn't realize crackhead was synonymous with pot smokers or drinkers, lol. Yep, I included drinkers, too. Let's throw in smokers and eaters while we're at it. Oh, let's not forget all the PORNO addicts, too. All these things could be considered life-destroying drugs, if the abuser won't stop. Why stop with just making a short list of drugs illegal, why not go for everything that could be considered harmful?

If the cops can use a simple urine test to determine if a suspect is under the influence of a chemical, then it's already proven to be accurate enough in the eyes of the court.

Secondly, I assure you, you can lump all the other "addicts" in with whatever drug you happen to prefer, and it doesn't take away from the fact that you are a drug abuser.


For once I wish the people who love their drug of choice so much that they always want to debate it, would just say "I like getting fucked up" instead of "but drinking is legal" and "there's no victim" and all the other bullshit excuses they use.

upinsmoke wrote:

bane wrote:Illegal drugs are already illegal. We aren't talking about instituting new drug laws here. It's welfare reform, not drug enforcement.

I realize this. I'm addressing VK's attitude -- "They're illegal, dammit!!11!!1" posts. "Oh no, sumbuddy smoked the pots!!!111!, They're on the welfare!!!!11!"

I wouldn't call a pothead a crackhead because it's not close to the same thing, but other than that, he's basically right. I know that pot use is largely accepted by society these days, and personally, I think that it's stupid that it is illegal, but, nevertheless, it's still illegal. If you're going to test people for coke, smack, whatever, you've got to give the same consideration for pot.

I DON'T do drugs, and rarely drink, but I still feel marijuana should be legal. Our economy could use the boost, not only from taxation, but also from the likelihood of there being fewer drug-influenced arrests, thus leaving the police able to actually work cases where someone IS being hurt.

Hell, treat it just like alcohol IMHO. Aren't there laws that increase the consequence of an illegal action if the person is drunk at the time they commit the crime?

VinnieKulick wrote: If the cops can use a simple urine test to determine if a suspect is under the influence of a chemical, then it's already proven to be accurate enough in the eyes of the court.

Is this where I put a facepalm? Ok -- *facepalm* What part of "would cost too much" and "not accurate" didn't you get?

Secondly, I assure you, you can lump all the other "addicts" in with whatever drug you happen to prefer, and it doesn't take away from the fact that you are a drug abuser.

You don't know that I "abuse" drugs. Do you drink beer or smoke cigarettes? If not -- I know you have family/friends that do use (abuse) since that's the standard you've just put out there. Do all those people let their personal habits affect job performance? Should it be the employer's business whether someone partakes of whatever substance off the clock?

For once I wish the people who love their drug of choice so much that they always want to debate it, would just say "I like getting fucked up" instead of "but drinking is legal" and "there's no victim" and all the other bullshit excuses they use.

I can, and will use 'legal' drugs for this discussion, since it is already hypothetical, at best. Hypothetically -- I think drug testing for welfare is asinine, and realistically, alcohol and nicotine ARE drugs, whether they're 'legal' or not. I say, if the government would test for drug use, then alcohol and nicotine should be prohibited as well.