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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
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
  #12  
Old 07-04-2011, 08:08 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
I see nothing at all wrong with this law. Anyone applying for government aid (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.) should be required to submit to a drug test prior to receiving that aid.

It's only logical and there's nothing unconstitutional about it. If you object to the test, then you simply don't receive the government aid. It's not like welfare, unemployment benefits, etc are constitutional rights; so no freedoms are being infringed upon.

Some might argue that there are people who depend on that money, but therein lies the problem. Nobody should depend on government handouts to survive. That gives the government way too much control over the life and death of its citizens - something that no government should have.
I believe it violates the 4th amendment. No unlawful searches and seizures. Nothing logical to it at all. You assume everyone is guilty.

Sure no one should depend on the government, but things happen. You are giving the government control over people by requiring this drug test. You contradict yourself here.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-05-2011, 11:24 AM
County Mike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
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?
I'm OK with that too. If they can afford enough food to get fat, they don't need gov't assistance. Eat less and save money.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-05-2011, 02:56 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
I believe it violates the 4th amendment. No unlawful searches and seizures. Nothing logical to it at all. You assume everyone is guilty.

Sure no one should depend on the government, but things happen. You are giving the government control over people by requiring this drug test. You contradict yourself here.
I completely disagree.

First of all, the drug test isn't mandatory. If you don't want the test, you simply don't apply for the government aid. Problem solved.

Secondly, submitting to a test that indicates the use of ILLEGAL narcotics is not an invasion of privacy, because the "right to privacy" doesn't give us the right to break the law. That kind of thinking falls into the "it's only wrong if you get caught" mentality, which is one of the major moral downfalls of our culture right now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-05-2011, 02:59 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by County Mike View Post
I'm OK with that too. If they can afford enough food to get fat, they don't need gov't assistance. Eat less and save money.
I'm okay with severely cutting back welfare benefits as well. Originally the system was designed to help out widows of soldiers killed during wartime and I think that's all it should be. If your husband/wife/father/mother/guardian wasn't killed in action during wartime, then you shouldn't qualify for welfare. Period.

Even then I think there should be a drug test.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-05-2011, 05:27 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

We have all debated this in the past, and I have always disagreed with this policy simply because I don't think it's going to be all that effective, and it's probably just going to cost even more money in the long run. I do agree with the logic behind it, but I just don't think it's going to have much impact.

Most users know how to pass basic urine tests, so that's a waste of time. Blood tests are more comprehensive and harder to pass, but they also take more time and cost more money. Then there is always the issue of separating those who are taking certain drugs for legit medical conditions and those who are abusing prescription drugs. A lot of these trailer park pill junkies are in the welfare system but they aren't all buying their drugs on street corners. They con doctors with fake medical records, x-rays, and mri's to get their hands on their fix so it appears to be legal.

Also, what about all the dependents in those households who are on drugs? Are we testing them too? Just because mom isn't shooting crank this week don't mean her two teenage kids that live at home aren't.

Or, what about alcohol? Are they going to test for that too? Seems kinda harsh to suggest that a person shouldn't be allowed to drink at all simply because they are on welfare. Now, if they are an alcoholic, or have DUI convictions or things of that nature, that is a different story. Still, you are gonna have to pay somebody to go over all that crap in each individual case. In the end, it's just adding MORE government spending.

As I said, I can agree with the logic behind it, and I am opposed to welfare on many levels, but I just don't see this as being any sort of a game changer. They will bust a few people and the majority will pass their tests while the problem still remains.

Last edited by J.B.; 07-05-2011 at 05:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-05-2011, 05:41 PM
Primadawn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children

This is a big issue. They can basically fail the drug test, have the grandparents receive the benefits, and then what? Hand them right over, that's what! So what's the point?
I like the idea. But there are too many loopholes. It's not going to really get a significant amount of people off welfare. Every little bit helps of course, but I wonder about the cost effectiveness.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-05-2011, 07:54 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Primadawn View Post
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children

This is a big issue. They can basically fail the drug test, have the grandparents receive the benefits, and then what? Hand them right over, that's what! So what's the point?
I like the idea. But there are too many loopholes. It's not going to really get a significant amount of people off welfare. Every little bit helps of course, but I wonder about the cost effectiveness.
Winner winner!!! Chicken dinner!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-06-2011, 11:29 AM
County Mike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Primadawn View Post
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children

This is a big issue. They can basically fail the drug test, have the grandparents receive the benefits, and then what? Hand them right over, that's what! So what's the point?
I like the idea. But there are too many loopholes. It's not going to really get a significant amount of people off welfare. Every little bit helps of course, but I wonder about the cost effectiveness.
That's the dumbest loophole ever. If they fail the drug test, they need to be investigated for the possiblity of having the children placed with relatives. I'm fine with giving the person plenty of notice to get clean before taking the test. If they're unable to, then they have a real drug problem and have no business raising children.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-06-2011, 02:04 PM
CAVEMAN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm all for the drug testing! Welfare is a broken system and encourages laziness!
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:05 AM.


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