Random drug testing for all government employees and welfare recipients (food stamps Included) (Rush Limbaugh, unemployed)
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 didn't read all these post so sorry if this is a repeat but You do know that a large segment of State, County and Municipal, workers already undergo drug testing? Anyone climbing a pole, running a powerplant, driveing a snowplow or dump truck, or roadgrader. We all get pee tested.......
A government employee is not a welfare recipient. Conservatives who can't tell the difference between the two should be randomly drug tested to see what hallocinogenic drugs they've clearly been ingesting.
Let's hold them accountable. If any government employee shows traces of drugs, discharge the employee and prosecute. Do the same for food stamp and other welfare recipients. Let's even include people receiving unemployment benefits.
When people live off the earnings of others, they deserve to be treated as second class citizens.
Silly post.
Why drugs? What will they do if they have a headache?
Why not prohibit everything that is not essential for life including television?
A government employee is not a welfare recipient. Conservatives who can't tell the difference between the two should be randomly drug tested to see what hallocinogenic drugs they've clearly been ingesting.
What about liberals who "can't tell the difference between the two?" Should they also be tested?
I think that if there is such a program, it should mean termination of benefits. I think that it should mean that in addition to continuation of benefits, the recipient should go to counseling and/or rehab. Our nation should be focused on helping the lowest tiers of society. Are we that callous that we would kick a person that's already down on their luck? I truly hope not.
Treating any group as a "second class citizen" kind of goes against the whole constitutional rights thing... that is where the entire black rights, women's rights, and current gay rights movements got their footing legally so to speak.
Also... you want to take a program that already has high costs... and add more costs to it... since someone has to pay for the drug testing, and increase to legal costs for courts and prison costs if prosecuted... causing noticeable costs increases for what is in most cases a misdemeanor.
That makes very little sense at all.... and what about cases where some states have legal medical use, or false positives, or even the case that some states (Such as California) have recently had actual propositions to go vote in regards to legalization?
Treating any group as a "second class citizen" kind of goes against the whole constitutional rights thing... that is where the entire black rights, women's rights, and current gay rights movements got their footing legally so to speak.
Also... you want to take a program that already has high costs... and add more costs to it... since someone has to pay for the drug testing, and increase to legal costs for courts and prison costs if prosecuted... causing noticeable costs increases for what is in most cases a misdemeanor.
That makes very little sense at all.... and what about cases where some states have legal medical use, or false positives, or even the case that some states (Such as California) have recently had actual propositions to go vote in regards to legalization?
So you think drug testing welfare recipients is going to create a " right to do drugs and get gov assistance" wave? Since when is taking drugs a right?
Yes the system does have very high cost but as I posted previous from 1 person I know we would save over 7k a year. Now that is 1 person. How much do you think the cost is going to really add when we are saving at least 6,900. Not sure how much a drug cost runs.
Why do you think we should pay someone for food when they have money to spend on drugs?
So you think drug testing welfare recipients is going to create a " right to do drugs and get gov assistance" wave? Since when is taking drugs a right?
Yes the system does have very high cost but as I posted previous from 1 person I know we would save over 7k a year. Now that is 1 person. How much do you think the cost is going to really add when we are saving at least 6,900. Not sure how much a drug cost runs.
Why do you think we should pay someone for food when they have money to spend on drugs?
Strawman Fallacy there.... I never said word one about it being right or wrong... never said anything about a trend in behavior either.
I said that increasing a cost on two fronts is not going to solve anything... if we increase cost to these systems, as well as the criminal justice systems... all we end up doing is moving the cost from one place to another.
Also more strawman in the focusing on one point to the exclusion of others... such as the fact that some states are considering legalizing some substances, already have medical use legalized, and that false positives can occur from certain prescription drugs.
Also, some of these systems include General Relief which is a monthly cash assistance... so you are also enacting false cause fallacy in the assertion that they have money for drugs but not food, when it actually could be money from the program paying for any drug use or legitimate medical use covered by state health care just as easily in some cases.
As for numbers.... Michigan actually tried this a few years back, only 3 percent give or take of all testing came back positive... at $42 per test, not counting cost of hiring additional employees for testing or the testing kits themselves, in the case of only 100 applicants that is a cost just for processing of over 4000 in losses. Further companies that do use mandatory drug testing have stated that it is not cost effective due to the low percentage, one company who said it netted them overall costs of roughly 20k per individual they actually caught. Likewise statistically (as sited in an article on Michigan's attempt which was ceased by the way as it was deemed not cost effective as well as unconstitutional) 70 percent of drug users are actually gainfully employed.
When the Michigan attempt was overturned it was stated by a Judge that their reasoning was not sound... because the legality of their reasoning would also require testing of any and all individuals receiving any state funded assistance. This would include any parent who enrolled a child in school and anyone applying for any kind of state or federal grant including education grants. The same judge also stated " It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well." So part of the bill being overturned on legal grounds was citation that it was deemed unconstitutional.
Also worth noting that when Michigan attempted it, all 49 of the other states had shot down similar plans on the grounds that either it was not cost effective or in 21 cases that such testing would be unlawful.
As I originally said, the issue is that it violates civil rights and is unconstitutional as well as the fact that it is not truly cost effective based on returns.
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.
