U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should people be required to submit to a drug screen before receiving unemployment benefits or welfa
Yes 118 65.19%
No 63 34.81%
Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2010, 09:59 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,198,868 times
Reputation: 13392

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
Maybe people should be tested before being allowed to claim the child tax credit or mortgage interest deductions. I don't want no druggies using that kid/house money to fuel their addictions! Banks should require it for all loan apps too! You can't trust drug users to pay anything back.
The comparison here is off a bit. With the mortgage deduction I get to keep some of the money taken from me. Lets say that again...the money taken from me and my family. Ya know, it's the money I earn that goes into the pocket of the gov for the wars, the dirty politicians, etc and the person that will be using it to live. It's one thing to demand criteria for folk using my money. It's another for you (general you) to demand criteria for me using my own flipping money.

While I take no issue with pot, and think it should be legalized, if you can afford to buy it then clearly you don't need the money I'm putting into the system. I'd rather keep my hard earned cash and give to my mom and family rather than you and yours under any circumstance. Why in the world some of you think you are entitled to what I and other tax payers bring to the table is beyond me. But, it's typical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2010, 11:07 PM
 
Location: California
29,597 posts, read 31,914,576 times
Reputation: 24735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
The comparison here is off a bit. With the mortgage deduction I get to keep some of the money taken from me. Lets say that again...the money taken from me and my family. Ya know, it's the money I earn that goes into the pocket of the gov for the wars, the dirty politicians, etc and the person that will be using it to live. It's one thing to demand criteria for folk using my money. It's another for you (general you) to demand criteria for me using my own flipping money.

While I take no issue with pot, and think it should be legalized, if you can afford to buy it then clearly you don't need the money I'm putting into the system. I'd rather keep my hard earned cash and give to my mom and family rather than you and yours under any circumstance. Why in the world some of you think you are entitled to what I and other tax payers bring to the table is beyond me. But, it's typical.
While it give me no joy to think that people collecting welfare are using drugs it would give me LESS JOY to, on top of that, add a drug testing bureaucracy ...and even then have to figure out what to do with the people who are cut off because you know it's not just going to end with us throwing people away.

Sometimes I think I'm just to practical for the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 11:42 PM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
28,185 posts, read 43,461,725 times
Reputation: 18574
Quote:
Originally Posted by california-jewel View Post
I don't see a problem in doing so at all. After all those seeking employment and who do get paid, have to succumb to a drug test.
I've NEVER had to take a pre-employment drug test, and we both live in the same state... what kind of jobs do you do, where they don't trust their employees to be responsible for their own bodies? And do they consider how long certain drugs - even in tiny doses - stay in your body? Can somebody who smoked a joint on Saturday still perform their job on Monday? If not, they were obviously a lousy worker to begin with.

Oh, and as a fellow Californian, how do you feel about medical marijuana users? Should they be subjected to these tests as well, considering the law of medical privacy at work? Quite the conundrum, isn't it?

Quote:
Do we really need the druggies, and the stoners, getting welfare, and buying you know what.
Unemployment and welfare are two different things... let's get that straight first, and then maybe this discussion would make more sense.

Quote:
Can you imagine the cost associated with a druggie or stoned person driving under the influence, or being stoned, if they killed a whole family while driving. And who would have to pay for the attorney's funeral, etc.
How often does a STONED (pot alone) driver kill somebody? I think alcoholics kill the most people on the road, along with sleepy drivers... so do you support testing for alcohol use and sleep deprivation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 11:47 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,198,868 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
While it give me no joy to think that people collecting welfare are using drugs it would give me LESS JOY to, on top of that, add a drug testing bureaucracy ...and even then have to figure out what to do with the people who are cut off because you know it's not just going to end with us throwing people away.

Sometimes I think I'm just to practical for the world.
I wouldn't support it simply due to the cost of testing. There is no way to know and nothing that can be done about it, really. It's the point and the analogy that I take issue with. For one, it's unethical. If a friend came to me and needed money, which happens from time to time, and s/he told me that s/he needed it for the rent, food, or whatever, and then instead took that money and bought booze or drugs or any other non-necessity with any part of it, I'd be pissed. I would not lend a friend money for drugs let alone a stranger. The assertion that I must do anything more than earn my own money in order to keep a portion of it is ludicrous and that thought process is rooted in entitlement.

I also don't buy into the idea of drug testing leading to cutting people off. I'd much rather see those tax monies funneled into rehab and vocational programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 11:50 PM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
28,185 posts, read 43,461,725 times
Reputation: 18574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
While it give me no joy to think that people collecting welfare are using drugs it would give me LESS JOY to, on top of that, add a drug testing bureaucracy ...and even then have to figure out what to do with the people who are cut off because you know it's not just going to end with us throwing people away.

Sometimes I think I'm just to practical for the world.
I wish more people were this practical. I'm a taxpayer, always have been (in my adult life), and I don't care one iota what OTHER people do with THEIR money - regardless of the source, if it's from welfare, work, UI, or selling drugs on the street. Possession is 9/10 of the law, and I have no right to tell others what to do with their personal finances. If they choose to use 50% of their welfare on drugs, and sacrifice food & basics from the other half, how is that my business? It's not, and I wish Americans would stop being so darned nosy.

All of these whiny "tax payers" don't whine about their money going to wars and corrupt politicians, but heaven forbid a welfare recipient spends $20 on a gram of pot. Oh no!! The world is coming to an end!! If we got to pick & choose where our tax money went, this country would collapse in under a year - I swear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 11:57 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,198,868 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
I wish more people were this practical. I'm a taxpayer, always have been (in my adult life), and I don't care one iota what OTHER people do with THEIR money - regardless of the source, if it's from welfare, work, UI, or selling drugs on the street. Possession is 9/10 of the law, and I have no right to tell others what to do with their personal finances. If they choose to use 50% of their welfare on drugs, and sacrifice food & basics from the other half, how is that my business? It's not, and I wish Americans would stop being so darned nosy.

All of these whiny "tax payers" don't whine about their money going to wars and corrupt politicians, but heaven forbid a welfare recipient spends $20 on a gram of pot. Oh no!! The world is coming to an end!! If we got to pick & choose where our tax money went, this country would collapse in under a year - I swear.
BS. Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Wars, welfare, politicians pocketing, is all theft as far as I'm concerned. I wish we could choose where our monies go. In no way would I dole out cash to any of them. And I don't give a flying fig if you call it wining. Get your (general you) hand out of my pocket.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 11:57 PM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
28,185 posts, read 43,461,725 times
Reputation: 18574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I wouldn't support it simply due to the cost of testing. There is no way to know and nothing that can be done about it, really. It's the point and the analogy that I take issue with. For one, it's unethical. If a friend came to me and needed money, which happens from time to time, and s/he told me that s/he needed it for the rent, food, or whatever, and then instead took that money and bought booze or drugs or any other non-necessity with any part of it, I'd be pissed. I would not lend a friend money for drugs let alone a stranger. The assertion that I must do anything more than earn my own money in order to keep a portion of it is ludicrous and that thought process is rooted in entitlement.
I get what you're saying, and understand why it would make you mad... but it's one thing when you hand a person money, and another when they're collecting legitimate government support. Once that money leaves your paycheck (or however you pay taxes), it's none of your business who spends it where. I occasionally give money to homeless people, and not ONCE have I asked "where/how are you going to spend it?" nor have I followed them to make sure it's used for food. That was my decision to give them money, and my responsibility for their actions ends with that exchange. Does that make sense?

Heck, I even bought BEER from time to time for this one homeless guy I knew... he had a rough life, so I figured he could use a buzz. I know if I were homeless, I'd need a beer every once in a while!

Quote:
I also don't buy into the idea of drug testing leading to cutting people off. I'd much rather see those tax monies funneled into rehab and vocational programs.
But how do they support themselves in the meantime? People are running out of unemployment benefits as we speak, and there still aren't enough jobs to go around... so where will these people live, and how will they eat, as they're receiving this job training? I agree with putting money into such programs, but we also need to maintain the UI & welfare support for those who need it. These systems are in place for a reason, and there would be major repercussions if it all ended tomorrow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 12:01 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
28,185 posts, read 43,461,725 times
Reputation: 18574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
BS. Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Wars, welfare, politicians pocketing, is all theft as far as I'm concerned. I wish we could choose where our monies go. In no way would I dole out cash to any of them. And I don't give a flying fig if you call it wining. Get your (general you) hand out of my pocket.
I wish we could choose too, but like I said, it would cause major societal collapse... that's because MOST people support the same basic things, and are against the same things as well. So while our educational system would improve greatly, welfare and corporate support would effectively end. And what about transportation? Everyone wants and needs good roads, but I always hear people complaining about the taxes involved. Would you want to drive on roads & bridges that didn't receive enough financial backing? As a San Franciscan who's surrounded by bridges that are barely earthquake-safe, I can say it would be a scary thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 12:13 AM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
28,185 posts, read 43,461,725 times
Reputation: 18574
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking View Post
As an employee, I would not work for you. You just lumped someone who may smoke a cigar or pipe tobacco even cigarettes once in a while like they where junkies.
And herein lies one of the problems with drug testing... can you compare somebody who smokes a joint at parties occasionally, to somebody who shoots heroin daily? No? Then how can we distinguish between the two? A "dirty drug test" only shows you have taken a substance, not that you're an addict or "druggie." People need to realize that, and understand these rules could put many DECENT hard-working people out of a job (or broke from lack of welfare/UI). And how do we even know they paid for these drugs themselves? If somebody passed you a joint and you took a hit, does that affect how you're spending welfare money? Think about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 07:19 AM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,198,868 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
I wish we could choose too, but like I said, it would cause major societal collapse... that's because MOST people support the same basic things, and are against the same things as well. So while our educational system would improve greatly, welfare and corporate support would effectively end. And what about transportation? Everyone wants and needs good roads, but I always hear people complaining about the taxes involved. Would you want to drive on roads & bridges that didn't receive enough financial backing? As a San Franciscan who's surrounded by bridges that are barely earthquake-safe, I can say it would be a scary thing.
I definitely support taxes for bridges, roads, schools, etc. Even tho I don't have children, it's good that my property taxes go to schools. I email the white house regularly (not that it does any good) with my complaints and I'm seriously opposed to war. I'm also somewhat informed about the political machine, from food politics (nestle's book 'food polictics' is a real eye opener) to pollution.

It's the principle that gets me and when having discussions on line a specific topic will appear more pronounced, in this case drugs and welfare, but again, that doesn't mean folk don't care about other issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top