Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would agree with drug testing for legal (some can effect judgnment) and illegal drugs for anyone applying for any government license, assistance or contract. That would weed out the drug users. Test everyone.
Would that include the government employees and legislators?
Public assistance comes in many forms, so you'd need to be a lot more specific with this concept. Some assistance (e.g., Medicaid, food stamps) is provided for minor children, but given to the adult in the family to administer. If the adult fails a drug test, do you plan to take the assistance away from the child who is the actual recipient?
Likewise, suppose a teenage recipient fails a drug test, would you eliminate assistance that benefits the entire family (Section 8, for example)?
Your thoughts?
It is very touchy, but the parents need to have some sense of responsibility. Won't make them a better parent, but at least they won't be on drugs(maybe).
I have a buddy who is on unemployment, and he lives off his parents. The only thing he uses his unemployment check for is buying weed. I dont care if you think weed should be legalized or not but WE shouldnt be buying it for other people through tax dollars. So i think we should require random drug testing.
Unemployment is not funded through tax dollars and I am surprised at the amount of people that think it is.
There are so many programs that receive public funds, should we drug test everyone that benefits from them. Should drug testing be one initial test or on going, weekly, monthly, quarterly?
Just a few programs that are funded with public money:
Municipal grants for city development
DOT funds for road construction and maintenance
Public Schools
Head Start
subsidized home loans
college loans
government cheese
Disaster assistance
Veterans assistance
Energy Assistance
Survivor benefits
Social Security
Cultural affairs
National Parks
Why should anyone indulging in a drug that the government deems illegal be able to use tax payers money!
Yes it would, but in the process it would also slow the miss use of government funded monies from being used for illegal drugs. If the "drug war" needs to end anyway why would you oppose the testing of the group that miss uses drugs the most?
You don't see the connection between disagreeing with the drug war and disagreeing with mandatory drug testing?
Testing everyone for illegal drug use would result in the drugs being legalized very promptly. the main reasons for keeping MJ illegal is to separate the entrepreneurs from the ghettos and keep the privately operated prisons full of low level prisoners.
Yes, all candidates for public office should be tested for legal and illegal drugs and the results publically posted. If you private habits require hiding your drug use I do not want you representing me.
Of all the things that I see wrong with the welfare system the recipients use of drugs doesn't come up on my radar. It is common practice now in the US to look at the ways in which ones personal morals can be foisted upon the hapless lower classes habits. Taxes are already being disproportionately levied on so much of the "sin" products like booze, cigarettes, and now pop and candy, shouldn't we just tax the dope and be done with it? The twisted notion of discouraging drug use through testing is truly proof of the loss of reasoning so obvious in todays anti drug/anti welfare debates. Getting the "legal stuff" has become the answer to so much of this hysteria surrounding the war on drugs, if we wanted to discourage drug use we'd be using an educational approach coupled with the understanding of dopes long history in the US beginning with that most favored drug, alcohol.
The cost of testing is also a good reason not to entertain any notions about testing being a cost cutter at the days end. The huge complexities in such a continuing check of ones habits would override the benefit by a large margin and therefore render it as one more attempt at moralizing "our" tax money. I can see that these issues are not coming from any real concern for the cost of welfare or the "right" of citizens to determine their spending of the public dollar, it is moreover a debate about the view that says those on public assistance need to be on a short leash, living a life of deprivation and despair, not partying it up on the public's dollar. When public housing was a disaster of slums and decrepit buildings and filth nobody gave a damn about what the poor were up to, now that the poor can at least look fairly mainstream with decent clothing and housing the public sentiment is that they "have it too good".
Wait, you think we should attack those who miss use legal drugs? How? they're legal, it's their doctors who have this job.
For the comments in bold, in my mind, yes! But I was looking to tackle one issue at a time.
The people who ABUSE government assistance should be exempt from government assistance. They are ungrateful and pull society down. Once they learn there is no free ride they will crap or get off the pot.
Okay, but you don't see that legal drugs are abused and bought with government money? Doctors are not responsible if the patient is doing the drugs for a high. The urine test for drugs also includes Darvon, codeine and morphine, etc. and I think if someone has an over the top level of these drugs, they should be included in the same rejection of illicit drugs.
I am thinking that it is what they do with these drugs, illegal or legal, as the issue because they are both abusing drugs and probably not taking care of their business, i.e. children, monthly bills. I would be willing to bet a person who is addicted to oxycontin or morphhine wouldn't be worth anything in being a responsible person. That is my reasoning.
Unemployment is not funded through tax dollars and I am surprised at the amount of people that think it is.
IT IS FUNDED THROUGH TAX DOLLARS! Employers contribute, but don't pay 100%.
Quote:
Where does the money come from?
It's raised through state and federal unemployment insurance taxes on employers. The federal tax is 6.2 percent on the first $7,000 in annual wages to each employee. State tax rates vary from state to state, as does the amount of each worker's income that's subject to the tax, which ranges from $7,000 to $34,000.
Do all employers in a given state pay the same?
No. The rate they pay depends on how many former employees have drawn jobless benefits — the more such workers an employer has, the higher the tax rate it must pay the state. The irony is that employers responsible for the most joblessness as a percentage of their work force — the ones that have gone out of business — cannot pay their share of unemployment taxes because they've gone under.
The basic UI system is funded by taxes that employers pay on behalf of their employees. (In a few states, the employee pays part of the tax.) States collect most of these taxes — including the taxes that pay for basic UI benefits — but the federal government collects some of the taxes as well. Temporary emergency federal programs like EUC are funded out of general Treasury funds.
While technically, employers pay both the federal and state taxes, economists generally regard the tax as falling on workers on the theory that the dollars employers pay in tax would otherwise have gone into workers’ paychecks.
The part about how we would all be paid more is of particular interest to me! Sure, the employers are taxed, and not citizens, but it affects how much goods and services cost, and how much we are paid. The more unemployment that is collected, the more money has to go into the system, and the more it costs the whole economy.
And here is one example of Tex. Labor Code Ann. §204.022 wherein the employer doesn't pay AT ALL for unemployment collected... and it can be collected if the employee QUITS and isn't even fired in this case!
Quote:
Benefits computed on benefit wage credits of an employee or former employee may not be charged to the account of an employer if the employee's last separation from the employer's employment before the employee's benefit year: (12) resulted from a move from the area of the employee's employment that: (A) was made with the employee's spouse who is a member of the armed forces of the United States; and (B) resulted from the spouse's permanent change of station of longer than 120 days or a tour of duty of longer than one year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
