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.
Nobody should be tested for anything unless and until something happens, then test away to explain it or punish more harshly if that's your thing.
Getting public service has nothing to do with what you consume. I can drink all month and never spend a penny on alcohol you know...so the whole "I don't want to support it" is bogus from the get go.
What you WANT is to eliminate fraud. Period. Get off your high horses about testing anyone for anything on a routine basis because your nosey. That should not be acceptable.
Consumtion is legal, but it doesn't mean they can't test for it. Alcohol is legal, and people are tested for that all the time. You cannot force tax-payers to finance the addictions of people on welfare.
You'd think that, wouldn't you? But it's obviously not true.
The whole idea of drug testing citizens for participation in a government program is sick and a waste of money, but more importantly it gets to the core of conservatism in this nation.
For conservatives, the idea that some people should be punished or have to jump through hoops if they get government help because conservatives hate those citizens and don't feel like they deserve the help is one of the more disgusting elements of conservative political ideology.
To me either we are all equal as Americans or we aren't equal.
Either a person believes that they don't want government money going to help anyone on drugs or that person doesn't.
If you are of the opinion that you don't want public funds going to drug abusers, then why stop at only drug testing people receiving TANF?
Of course they stop at poor people receiving TANF because they hate their guts and think they are immoral, lazy, criminal and are therefore undeserving of government help.
You say that, but it's obviously crap. You want a recipient class to be able to leach off workers and do nothing in return. Not work, not study, not even avoid poisoning themselves with illicit drugs. If you wanted all Americans to be treated as equals you would insist that we quit taking the product of their labor from one group of people and giving it to people that do nothing to earn it.
Nobody should be tested for anything unless and until something happens, then test away to explain it or punish more harshly if that's your thing.
Getting public service has nothing to do with what you consume. I can drink all month and never spend a penny on alcohol you know...so the whole "I don't want to support it" is bogus from the get go.
What you WANT is to eliminate fraud. Period. Get off your high horses about testing anyone for anything on a routine basis because your nosey. That should not be acceptable.
If you can afford to buy alcohol all month, you don't need me to buy your dinner, pay for your shelter, pay for your health care and every other want.
You say that, but it's obviously crap. You want a recipient class to be able to leach off workers and do nothing in return. Not work, not study, not even avoid poisoning themselves with illicit drugs. If you wanted all Americans to be treated as equals you would insist that we quit taking the product of their labor from one group of people and giving it to people that do nothing to earn it.
Oh so you got nothing but a rant against other Americans. The US government takes from all Americans and gives to other Americans, it is the very function of government.
Everything that government does involves this. Every penny spent involves benefitting some while taking from others.
Every law passed involves benefitting some while taking from others. Every regulation every thing.
The problem is that Americans who ALL benefit from the government at the expense of other Americans believe they can judge whether other Americans whom they hate should benefit as they do.
People are already being tested for nicotine and fired for it's use. That would include any nicotine products like the patch or gum.
The Fed considers smoking an activity, not a medical condition and thus smokers are not a protected class at the federal level.
Something like 15 +/- states take a different position on smoking and do not allow employers to discriminate against smokers.
In other states, employers have the right to ask if the job applicant smokes and if the response is affirmative, toss the resume. They also have the right to test for nicotine at any point in time. Some employers reduce the portion of healthcare insurance they subsidize for smokers. Others will dismiss smokers.
I should hope their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure trumps your belief that policy should be geared around giving you your way.
Again if you are going to argue that no one in the private sector is being forced to pee into cup then the same argument applies to welfare recipients. Want the job? Pee in the cup. Want the welfare? Pee in the cup.
My way as I already mentioned would include testing just a small minority of people in particular jobs like airline pilots, train engineers, bus drivers, etc. Jobs where people lives depend on them being alert and being able to make coherent decisions. In the meantime as long as Joe six pack can be tested then there is no reason the welfare recipient shouldn't be tested.
It's funny how it isn't unconstitutional for the people who work and pay taxes but unconstitutional for those who get a free ride.
Yeah--we should be drug testing those 80-year-olds on Social Security!
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.