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.
My son was caught drinking out in the middle of the woods at the age of 19. (they were camping out so that nobody would be driving) He was cited. I figured no big deal, he will pay a fine and that was that.
His options ended up being probation with community service or 3 days in jail. This is for having beer at 19. Now this doesn't apply to him but I find it amazing that someone could risk his life in Iraq, come home, have a beer and get put in jail for it. Absolutely asinine.
Anyway, he took the probation. He was tested every month. On his 4th month he called me late in the day saying that he had missed the appt that day. I told him he needed to call first thing in the A.M. and reschedule. He did but wasn't able to talk to the P.O. for 3-4 days. He goes in and the P.O. hands him a cup and tells him to go pee. He says he needed a drink as he wasn't able to. The P.O. told him to go pee. He barely filled the bottom.
He brought it back, the P.O. said he had failed and was going to jail. I intervened and said that this was all ridiculous as this was all over drinking beer at 19. He said to me that when someone misses an appt. it's because they know they will fail and are guilty. I told him that he tried to come in the next day. He said that he didn't care. It took me three days to get him out of jail and we fought it.
It drug out from one hearing to the next. The P.O. admitted that he didn't get a good sample but that it was still valid as he often times will have to tip is sideways to get a reading. (never mind the instructions are that it is not valid unless filled all the way)
My son was finally found not guilty. We are currently getting ready to take this further. So, I have qualms with the police doing this also. State law is that it must be done in a registered facility. This argument was dismissed as was the one that stated that my son had a right to see the results against him. (It was thrown away)
It sounds to me that they were just trying to bang more money out of you and your son. You know, gotta keep that revenue flowin'!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I'm still willing to draw a line. Certainly not at 21. I believe that if one is old enough to serve their country in the military, they are old enough to have a beer.
I totally agree. We're perfectly fine with sending our young people off to fight someone elses wars, they should be able to have a beer.
Could you please explain your logic behind your support for drug tests for employees who work for their money, but not for welfare recipients. It just makes no sense to me.
It isn't. I don't know any liberals who support general employment related drug testing.
That's even beyond the very basic point that drug testing requirements for public assistance have nothing to do with protecting the public interest and everything to do with expressing hatred for and making life difficult for people who receive public assistance.
Preventing people from spending their welfare check on crack is not in the public interest? You don't happen to be a liberal- do you??
Preventing people from spending their welfare check on crack is not in the public interest? You don't happen to be a liberal- do you??
It absolutely is. The problem is in assuming all are guilty of that. I would have no problem with a lifetime removal of benefits for anyone convicted of selling crack. Lesser punishment for using.
Liberals, why is it OK to drug test those who work for their money, but not test those who dont?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan
Could you please explain your logic behind your support for drug tests for employees who work for their money, but not for welfare recipients. It just makes no sense to me.
Please back up your statement with some facts. Because it looks to me like it's purely your opinion.
I think most workplace drug testing is a result of corporate policy.
I think that drug testing welfare recipients would be a titanic waste of tax funds. But the drug testing companies no doubt support it whole-heartedly.
It absolutely is. The problem is in assuming all are guilty of that. I would have no problem with a lifetime removal of benefits for anyone convicted of selling crack. Lesser punishment for using.
Here's the solution:
Make drug testing mandatory to receive welfare. Those who don't like being tested are free to opt out by not continuing to receive welfare.
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.
Liberals, why is it OK to drug test those who work for their money, but not test those who dont?
