Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #14  
Old 07-04-2011, 08:04 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
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.
Yes it is. A person can choose a job where there is no drug test. A poor person with no money has no choice. If they can't feed themselves, how can they pay $238 for a drug test? Getting reimbursed requires them to first have the money to pay for it. No money to pay for it, no assistance. Do you really wish to deprive children of food and shelter? That is so sad in so many ways. Do you wish for them to do something illegal in order to get the money. Do you want the mothers to prostitute themselves?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
That is a great deal of money, but the article clearly states that they will be reimbursed that money when they pass.
How does a poor person with no money get the money to pay for the test. If they have $228, then they can buy food for themselves. Desperate people will resort to desperate measures. Man, you'll feed a prisoner, but not a law abiding poor person with no money to pay for a drug test. For $238, I can feed myself for well over a month or two easily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
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.
I didn't miss that. If you look, I said it was a conflict IMO. Do you really trust the government to do what's right? Do you really trust politicians? Of course they won't find it a conflict, they are in this together. His wife still has a financial interest in the company if you read the article. Conflict still exists.

[QUOTE=VCURamFan;171055]
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 VCURamFan View Post

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.
Can you show me a law where it states that being a drug user is illegal? Just wondering if you can. Illegal searches are illegal, which this is. Innocent until proven guilty in America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
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.
No kids here. I'm happy and headache free. That scenario doesn't equate to this situation, though I understand the point you are trying to make.

Again, you are making an assumption that all poor people use drugs. Again, $238 can buy a lot of food for a child. Do you think that these poor folks have $238 just lying around? So you have no problem with a person using welfare money to buy alcohol and gamble with it, but damn the poor non-drug user who can't afford a drug test and can't get assistance because of it. It seems like they are trying to kill off the poor or get them to commit criminal acts in order to acquire the money to pay for a non-constitutional drug test.

That is not American.

Another problem is that drug tests are easy to pass even when positive. What's to stop a person from pissing clean, then getting the money and then buying drugs with it? It's a completely asinine system. Are you going to strip search and do body cavity searches to make sure that they don't have anything up there to tamper with the results. So do you want to subject every poor person who is already humiliated because they have to go on the dole with the humiliating body cavity search and piss test, which they can be clean for and then purchase drugs after the fact if they so wished?

Please understand that while I may be blunt in my response to you, I hold no ill will for you, just your position. Yes, I do wish to change you mind on this. Who will think of the children, who will think of the children?

There has to be a better way. It's a money making scam through and through. It's cost will outweigh the benefits. How many times are you going to make these people take drug tests?
Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.