Why does the government need to drug test you in the first place? It's sad how people take these invasions into our privacy like it's some normal thing these days. And why do people assume that everyone on welfare uses drugs?
How is this an invasion of privacy? He drives a truck on a public road! Unless of course to you it's ok to run down a family in a car while the truck driver was high on narcs.
I never said that ALL people on welfare use drugs, As far as I know, no one has. but why should my tax dollars be used to support people who neglect their kids to feed their habit? I have no problem with people using my tax dollars as a stop gap til they get on their feet again. I've had to do it myself on a couple of occasions. As for my being tested, that stems from a minority of drivers using drugs to stay awake to complete runs that dispatchers, many of which couldn't drive a semi to save their souls, sent them on. Many drivers are paid by the mile, I'm not BTW, so the more miles they can log, the more they make. But that is limited by Federal laws as well. Believe it or not, a trucker can get a speeding ticket simply by logging more than 800 miles in a 10 hour period. As they consider it impossible to run a consistent 75 MPH.
Ahh, sounds like we should leave ATM's unlocked so a would be thief doesn't have to bring a gun to the bank. Yeah...sounds crazy to me too.
The fact of the matter is that those that support the expansion of government power in this case are supporting big brother government. It is a hypocritical position for those that are opposed to welfare because of their views on the extension of government power to support further expansion of government power in order in this case.
you have to take drug tests to get a job from most places now days, so why shouldnt you have to take a drug test to receive money that came from hard working citizens tax dollars?
Of course it is, you basically said even if the money went to drugs, you'd see value in it because at least they werent taking desperate acts to obtain them. In other words give them the drugs so they dont commit a violent act to obtain them? If Im misinterpereting something with regards to your take, then perhaps you can clear it up, but that's how it reads to me. As such my scenario is exactly the same ridiculous line of thought.
Funny, But why should my tax dollars go to people who are only interested in sitting on their backsides and getting high?
Because the *******s say so. So just do it and ****! Who cares if they're 3rd and 4th generation welfare riders! The *******s need someone to vote for them!
No, you did miss my point. The drug addict on welfare hypothetical still has added value to society by limiting the desperation of the addict. It's pretty silly to assume that our hypothetical drug addict is spending ALL of their welfare money on drugs. If this person is maintaining a place to live and food to eat, they are less likely to commit crimes of desperation, such as your hypothetical bank robbery. Of course, just on it's face, leaving atm's unlocked would promote crime, not mitigate it. Your analogy fails. Sorry. Feel free to try again. Or you could directly engage my point and tell me that you either agree or disagree that the welfare spending in our hypothetical scenario has value if it reduces crime.
Most corporations require drug tests. Its a simple requirement, since people on drugs don't make effective employees. You could of course refuse, but then they could refuse to employ you. I really dont see a problem since if you're not on drugs, taking the test is just a formality. And if you're the kind of person who would refuse, you probably have loads of other problems that would make you unemployable and untrustworthy. Think about it. Could you trust the person next to you if they refused to take a simple drug test? I couldn't. How responsible could they be?
So what are you suggesting ? Black judges are smarter ? Obviously this is the right decision as it violateds the right to privacy and liberty. Aside from that it is a completely stupid rule that can not be applied equally which is a violation of the rule of law. Are we going to take food away from the Children of a Pot smoking mom ?
I have no problem with my being tested, but shouldn't those living off my tax dollars meet the same standards? Liberals constantly claim that things should be "fair". What could be more fair than that?
No I did not miss any point.It doesn't matter if they spend ALL or PART of the welfare money on drugs, even one cent of welfare money being allocated for this is a waste, not to mention illegal..and a crime. You can rally behind disclaimers like "crime of desperation" to somehow try and smokescreen that what you are proposing is in fact a crime itself...but you arent fooling anyone. Of course it does homerjay, and wasn't meant to be a serious answer to money theft. However so does aiding the continued illegal drug trafficking, deals gone bad and bad batches of dangerous drugs which is what you seem to think is somehow acceptable to do with our tax dollars...because you think it stops crime. Unless you are somehow going to tell us that drug deals and such are always friendly, legal affairs...then I think you are off the mark here. There is no need for me to "try again", your entire line of reasoning in this matter fails. No my analogy was spot on homerjay. You are effectively giving in on, and in fact sponsoring their drugs to avoid what you consider to be an elevated risk by the addict. I disagree with the entire premise you put forth. We do not tackle crime, by sponsoring it.
Oh hey look! It's the Florida law I said was going to get blocked and none of the conservative posters believed me. Check the sig b(*)(*)(*)(*)es.
You do not see a problem because you do not understand the Constitution. Second, folks that use illegal recreational drugs on the weekend are just as productive as those that do not. Alcohol is a drug btw but it happens to be legal. If such a justification was legitmate, or legitimized, then you would also be in favor of corporations banning their employees from drinking because folks with hangovers are not as effective. "Think about it" Corporations could start making up all kinds of things based on this rational. Limiting diets of people because "fat people are less effective", limiting activities such a skiing because folks with broken legs less effective. A corporation in general has no business dictating what folks do when not at work . This violates constitutionally protected freedoms such as liberty and the persuit of happiness. It also violates arbitrary search clause. The law does not exist in a vacuum. As soon as you break down one of the pillars of the constitution it opens up pandora's box. Being for freedom does not mean believing for freedom for only things you agree with. If you only believe in freedom and liberty for things you agree with then you are not for freedom at all. So when you support repressing the freedom of others do not be suprized when your freedom gets taken away.
You're a firefighter? That's awesome, Hat! What a rewarding career that would be. I would imagine your drug tests were because you are in a very important job. You cannot have someone on drugs wielding a fire hose and running into buildings, They not only put themselves at risk, but the entire department as well - not to mention the innocent lives they should be trying to save. Welfare recipients don't have any such job. I don't agree that a drug addict should lose their welfare, but I do think that instead of giving people cash, the welfare should be paid in vouchers, for food, clothing etc, so there is no chance of anyone buying drugs.
I am not on welfare. I earn way too much to even apply for it, although if I could get it, I would. Its its offered, why not take it? I am not opposed to drug testing in the workplace, but it depends on what kind of job you are applying for. If you want to be a policeman, paramedic, firefighter etc, you shouldn't have any drugs or alcohol in your system at all. But if you have an ordinary office job and just sit at a computer typing all day, I don't see the need to waste all that time on a drug test.
I didn't say being poor was voluntary....but, accepting welfare sure is. The right to privacy that you speak of? Are those the ones where, someone goes to the corner gets their check and then instead of using the money to buy her/his children milk and bread, she/he buys meth instead? Those rights? Those aren't rights when taking money for those purposes are illegal, and the act of purchasing meth is as well. So, WHAT RIGHTS? You still have the right to not be tested, so these people lose nothing except the ability to be drug addicts on my dime.
There are people who don't want to work, don't like getting up in the morning or being told what to do. And wouldn't you know it? They just happen to be poor too. What a strange coincidence.
