View Single Post
  #6  
Old 07-04-2011, 12:20 AM
VCURamFan's Avatar
VCURamFan VCURamFan is offline
MMA, VCU, & Doctor Who
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Basketball Capital of the World
Posts: 14,313
Send a message via AIM to VCURamFan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
No it doesn't. It's an unlawful search. No probable cause. What other rights are you willing to give up?
Buzz, that's no different than the drug test you take when you're applying for many jobs. Those tests aren't forced. You are given 2 choices: take a drug test or apply for a different job. Same thing here - take the test or look elsewhere for money. And no, I don't feel sorry for the poor people who are "forced" to take that second option because that means that they're criminals & it's they're own fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
Do you know how much a drug screen costs? I do. It's $228.00. I have a receipt in front of me showing it. Do you think poor folks can afford that?
That is a great deal of money, but the article clearly states that they will be reimbursed that money when they pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
I find it to be a total conflict of interest on the Gov's part too. How nice that he and wife share stock in a company that provides drug screens. Putting it under his wife's name doesn't take away the conflict. Sure they say they won't apply for the contract now, but they will eventually imo.
Did you completely miss the part where a) they were found to be not guilty of conflict of interest on two seperate counts and b) "He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company"? This means he doesn't have any chance of making money off this & his conflict of interest is negated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
I thought folks wanted a less intrusive government, maybe that's only the one's who care about the CONUS though.
This is kind of an interesting case, isn't it? On the one hand, the government is taking a bit more power for itself (making itself larger), but on the other hand the whole purpose of that power is to remove itself from the lives of some of its citizens (making itself smaller). Who wants to lay on odds that they two won't balance out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
EDIT: How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits? Do you really want to live in a nanny state? Attacking and charging the poor when they don't have the funds to feed themselves is repulsive and unAmerican.
While I understand the correlation you're drawing between a pair of 2 unhealthy lifestyle choices, the simple flaw is that being overweight isn't illegal while being a drug abuser is. The simple, underlying premise of the bill is that if you're going to receive state funds, you shouldn't be breaking state laws. This is very similar to when you as a father (you did say you have kids, right? If I'm remembering this incorrectly, then clearly I mean this as a hypothetical scenario!! ) withhold your child's allowance (or cell phone or car keys or etc., etc., etc.) because they disobeyed you by breaking curfew. In both situations, the money is a privilege, not a right & is therefore capable of being revoked for infractions.
__________________
Reply With Quote