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.
Urinalysis is stupidto stop drug use. Marijuana is the only drug that stays I yiur system for more then three days with urine. Meth, cocaine, heroine, crack, mushrooms, every ither drug is out if yiur system in three days. THC is fat soluble. It takes 30 to 45 days for your body to process fat. And thats one joint. Now if you smoked two a month, now you're really screwed.
Urine drug testing is pointless
I never said whether or not it was useless. I think all drugs should be legal.
I can understand the logic of it, but I can't say I agree or would support such a proposal. It's almost akin to taking someone's blood without their permission. Upon reading the article though, it seems he is not suggesting what you claimed. A biometric keypad doesn't seem unreasonable at all as long as the cops can keep their hands off the electronic records.
"What we really should have is fingerprinting to get in," he went on. "And of course ... there’s an allegation that some of these apartments aren’t occupied by the people who originally have the lease."
The article wasn't too clear on that point. Was he saying to use biometric locks to physically get into the buildings, or was the saying fingerprinting should be used to get into the program to try and catch people with warrants or otherwise tied to crimes?
The first might work to keep non residents out of the buildings, in theory reducing crime. The second would probably get them sued by the ACLU for denying criminals public housing, and would be more likely to actually reduce crimes.
If it's the first, I also think it would be a HUGE expense to continually repair the fingerprint scanners at the buildings that would surely be vandalized or otherwise damaged on a daily basis so the criminals could still get into the buildings.
The article wasn't too clear on that point. Was he saying to use biometric locks to physically get into the buildings, or was the saying fingerprinting should be used to get into the program to try and catch people with warrants or otherwise tied to crimes?
The first might work to keep non residents out of the buildings, in theory reducing crime. The second would probably get them sued by the ACLU for denying criminals public housing, and would be more likely to actually reduce crimes.
If it's the first, I also think it would be a HUGE expense to continually repair the fingerprint scanners at the buildings that would surely be vandalized or otherwise damaged on a daily basis so the criminals could still get into the buildings.
While it's probably true that subsidization has helped to increase rents, it doesn't change the fact that most folks in that subsidized housing are NOT simply unemployed folks the way you seem to think they are. They are not wards of the state - they are middle-class people in the most expensive city in the nation.
Well...last time I looked independent DOES NOT mean progressive. It means unaffiliated with either party. I know a whole lot of conservative leaning independents too.
This makes me laugh--so now you guys are writing off independents as people who'll never vote R? The next election is going to be super entertaining....
Bloomberg is a progressive regardless of what flag he flies under.
I wish that every republican were a conservative.
Nixon, Ford, Bush1 and Bush 2, McCain, Romney.....all progressives.
I'm surprised some are letting our esteemed "Alphamale" highjack this thread.
It is very interesting, this concept of fingerprint access to public housing. I had hoped we could discuss it more at length. We were getting a bipartisan consensus of a sort.
After reading every Alphamale post in this thread, I see his only agenda is to trash the whole subsidy, welfare, public housing concept. It's a Libertarian thing(not one penny for the poor. The constitution forbids it, personal responsibility and all that). He could care less about the fingerprint issue because he doesn't believe in any public housing anyway. Just a platform for his philosophy. No disrespect intended towards Alphamale.
Earn your way as was originally intended.
I believe in help for the helpless, not the clueless.
I'm sure you'll agree that our welfare programs are turning us into a welfare state.
What, you don't believe in following the constitution?
Bloomberg is a progressive regardless of what flag he flies under.
I wish that every republican were a conservative.
Nixon, Ford, Bush1 and Bush 2, McCain, Romney.....all progressives.
Well then, apparently the American People DON'T WANT a "conservative" as President - that seems VERY clear.
Ken
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.
It means unaffiliated with either party. I know a whole lot of conservative leaning independents too.
