Deal signs welfare drug-testing mandate (West Point: purchasing, luxury, living in)

[spotch]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but a federal judge just ruled against a similar law in Florida.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by spotch

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but a federal judge just ruled against a similar law in Florida.

Best I can tell has nothing to do with welfare recipients, although it does say that the Gov of FL has suspended that program as well. This law is about pre-employment screens of state workers.

Florida judge blocks drug tests for state workers - US news - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47192700#.T5qc29VDGt8 - broken link)

QUESTION: When will the state get a warrant before they unreasonable come and seize my money each year to fund these programs? Answer: NEVER

[Onthemove2014]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Let me ask a basic question that is square on topic for this thread. Forget about costs and all the cover excuses about taxpayer money.

Do you think people who use drugs should be allowed to collect taxpayer funded benefits, in this case state related benefits?

This is a simple YES or NO question. If you answer YES, then we can all discuss the best way to ensure that people who use drugs are kept off the rolls. This law is one way to do that, but maybe there is a better way.

What disturbs me is that I perceive that some of you actually don't feel it's wrong to give welfare to people using drugs. Some of you seem to make the case that it's OK for someone to smoke pot, snort or smoke coke, do meth, etc....and still come to the taxpayers with their hand out. Am I misunderstanding you?

I choose which ever saves tax payers money. Simple as that.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by neil0311

QUESTION: When will the state get a warrant before they unreasonable come and seize my money each year to fund these programs? Answer: NEVER

The next step will be to require drug testing of all taxpayers, since the consumption of illegal substances could affect their performance and lower their tax-paying ability.

Of course all non-taxpayers will be exempt. We don't want to impair their constitutional rights.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by Onthemove2014

I choose which ever saves tax payers money. Simple as that.

So if it saved taxpayers money to allow DUI, then you'd be OK with that too? It costs money to enforce laws and to ensure public safety.

I bet if we did away with welfare entirely, we could save a whole bunch of money....right? I'm not advocating that, but if you want to save money....pretty easy.

[Onthemove2014]

Originally Posted by neil0311

So if it saved taxpayers money to allow DUI, then you'd be OK with that too? It costs money to enforce laws and to ensure public safety. .

That would actually be a public safety risk. That is about as silly as getting rid of police to save money.

Originally Posted by neil0311

I bet if we did away with welfare entirely, we could save a whole bunch of money....right? I'm not advocating that, but if you want to save money....pretty easy.

That is not a terrible idea if done right. We couldn't just do it in a vaccume though, other things like the monetary system and government regulations and subsidize on businesses would have to change. Basically, a true free market where the government only protect property and a monetary system based on real tangible goods like gold or raw materials. Then things would be good enough for charities to handle the safety net.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The next step will be to require drug testing of all taxpayers, since the consumption of illegal substances could affect their performance and lower their tax-paying ability.

Of course all non-taxpayers will be exempt. We don't want to impair their constitutional rights.

LOL...wouldn't surprise me.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Let me ask a basic question that is square on topic for this thread. Forget about costs and all the cover excuses about taxpayer money.

Do you think people who use drugs should be allowed to collect taxpayer funded benefits, in this case state related benefits?

This is a simple YES or NO question. If you answer YES, then we can all discuss the best way to ensure that people who use drugs are kept off the rolls. This law is one way to do that, but maybe there is a better way.

What disturbs me is that I perceive that some of you actually don't feel it's wrong to give welfare to people using drugs. Some of you seem to make the case that it's OK for someone to smoke pot, snort or smoke coke, do meth, etc....and still come to the taxpayers with their hand out. Am I misunderstanding you?

It's not okay, but it's also a big smokescreen. Where's the objective, verifiable data that so many welfare recipients are getting high so often that it's in our best interest to drug-test them? Frankly, the unhealthy food items that they are allowed to purchase poses a bigger threat in the long run. And of course, let's not forget about the perfectly legal drugs out there that they are allowed to purchase.

[Caleb Longstreet]

I'm fine with the testing and I don't care what it costs. If you aren't using, not a problem. If you are, let Barrack change that too if he gets re-elected. Ironic though seeing how he likes to spend your money too.

I'm fine with thrashing Obama's supporters and choking off one Ill gotten subsidy wherever possible and I am perfectly willing to spend my money and yours exposing as many dbags as possible from all walks of life as possible.

If you are guilty, tough. If you are not, you are fine. Gee, it almost sounds like common sense. Maybe we could use that ACORN money? I hear they got 5 billion they won't be using this year....whatever happened to THAT outrage?

Test and then test some more.....feel the burn....

In fact let's take the obligatory SUV's back if we catch them committing fraud...sel them at auction and use THAT money to pay for the program....

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Frankly, the unhealthy food items that they are allowed to purchase poses a bigger threat in the long run.

This is where I see red. I'm personally a pretty healthy eater. I don't eat red meat, and I eat lots of fruits, and I take other steps to cut down on fat and empty calories. Having said that, it's my personal choice and decision to do so. I also work out at the gym 5 days a week.

You use the word "allow" as if you would advocate banning unhealthy food items. Blaming the sale of unhealthy items is a cop out. You the individual possess the ability to make choices. You can eat healthy foods, or you can stuff fatty, greasy crap down your throat. Frankly, the south has a long tradition of doing the latter, along with a huge mason jar of sugary brown water known as sweet tea.

What is needed is for individuals to make better choices, despite what is sold. We don't need the government to play food police.