florida drug test for welfare recipiants

[Gallowglass]

I think drug testing (for any reason) sucks. If you're for it, I think you suck. That's all I can add to this thread.

That's awesome.

[f.sciarrillo]

I think drug testing (for any reason) sucks. If you're for it, I think you suck. That's all I can add to this thread.

I feel that the majority of people who feel that way are people who would not pass a drug test. It is the same with the people who are against drug testing welfare recipients. So I guess I suck because I want it done. Oh well.

[Gallowglass]

...I feel that the majority of people who feel that way are people who would not pass a drug test. It is the same with the people who are against drug testing welfare recipients. So I guess I suck because I want it done. Oh well.

What does the second sentence mean? I'm not quite sure I understand. Does that mean that you feel most of the people who are against testing welfare recipients are that way because they are welfare recipients?

[f.sciarrillo]

...I feel that the majority of people who feel that way are people who would not pass a drug test. It is the same with the people who are against drug testing welfare recipients. So I guess I suck because I want it done. Oh well.

What does the second sentence mean? I'm not quite sure I understand. Does that mean that you feel most of the people who are against testing welfare recipients are that way because they are welfare recipients?

No, not at all; what I mean is that I feel that a majority of the welfare recipient who are against the testing would not pass the test. I know that a lot of people who are against it are not welfare recipients. lol

[Gallowglass]

...I feel that the majority of people who feel that way are people who would not pass a drug test. It is the same with the people who are against drug testing welfare recipients. So I guess I suck because I want it done. Oh well.

What does the second sentence mean? I'm not quite sure I understand. Does that mean that you feel most of the people who are against testing welfare recipients are that way because they are welfare recipients?

No, not at all; what I mean is that I feel that a majority of the welfare recipient who are against the testing would not pass the test. I know that a lot of people who are against it are not welfare recipients. lol

Unfortunately, you might be right about that.

[Hawk]

Joe, just as I believe that if hard drugs were legal, they would increase in use. I believe that the local laws have cut the use relative to what it would be without laws.

As with the history I posted and other searches, drug use decreased when laws went into effect.

Again Joe. There are NO statics available relative to the consumption of alcohol during prohibition.

Didn't you tell me drugs were legal in the Netherlands. ? I can't find anything about that. I see that weed is illegal but they choose not to enforce the law. Hard drugs are illegal.

[slackin@dabass]

There is no two wrongs here. It is the fact that there are people living off the tax payers money who do nothing but sit around shooting up, smoke dope, or snort lines. Welfare is the most abused system and something has to be to done to get the slackers, and abusers, off of it.

So, if they are going to treat it like a career, then they should be drug tested. There is no unconstitutionality about it. There is no invasion of privacy. Do you call needing a drug to get a job invasion of privacy? If you call needing a drug test to get welfare such, then you have to agree that it is to get a job.

Actually, I do see two wrongs...1st is the welfare state itself. It has done nothing but create a government sanctioned slave state. The so called "War on Poverty", instituted in the early 60's has begat us nothing but greater poverty. Personally, I'd abolish the welfare state and let private charities handle the situation. IMO, they've done a better job.

The 2nd, is,
yes, the invasion of privacy that comes with mandatory drug testing. Keep in mind, this is not coming from a private institution (which I have no problem with), this is coming from the government...is that really how a government should treat it's citizens? I'd also decriminalize drugs. The "War on Drugs" has created nothing more than increased drug usage, more potent drugs, militarized our police, and criminalized an entire segment of our population.

You know, politicians are nothing more than people who are living off the tax payers money...should we require a drug test of them too?

If you get a check from the government you should be piss tested. So just a question... if all drugs were legalized today would it be ok with you if private companies still required piss tests?

[slackin@dabass]

There is no two wrongs here. It is the fact that there are people living off the tax payers money who do nothing but sit around shooting up, smoke dope, or snort lines. Welfare is the most abused system and something has to be to done to get the slackers, and abusers, off of it.

So, if they are going to treat it like a career, then they should be drug tested. There is no unconstitutionality about it. There is no invasion of privacy. Do you call needing a drug to get a job invasion of privacy? If you call needing a drug test to get welfare such, then you have to agree that it is to get a job.

Actually, I do see two wrongs...1st is the welfare state itself. It has done nothing but create a government sanctioned slave state. The so called "War on Poverty", instituted in the early 60's has begat us nothing but greater poverty. Personally, I'd abolish the welfare state and let private charities handle the situation. IMO, they've done a better job.

The 2nd, is,
yes, the invasion of privacy that comes with mandatory drug testing. Keep in mind, this is not coming from a private institution (which I have no problem with), this is coming from the government...is that really how a government should treat it's citizens? I'd also decriminalize drugs. The "War on Drugs" has created nothing more than increased drug usage, more potent drugs, militarized our police, and criminalized an entire segment of our population.

You know, politicians are nothing more than people who are living off the tax payers money...should we require a drug test of them too?

If you get a check from the government you should be piss tested. So just a question... if all drugs were legalized today would it be ok with you if private companies still required piss tests?

[Banned]

Bill you have been playing music for decades, 4 at least. You must know hundreds of musicians. I would presume to say at least some of the musicians you know over the years were not virgins to drugs. I would bet you know hundreds of musicians and music fans who use or have used drugs.

Are all of those people lying in the gutter drug addicts?

If not, why were drug laws needed? You know that anybody can find and do drugs, and I would bet very few people you know are lying in the gutter addicts. You KNOW many people do drugs, yet a very small minority end up as lying in the gutter addicts.

Why do you want authoritarian, totalitarian laws that cost this country trillions of dollars, just to prevent a few fools from doing what they would do any way (drugs legal or illegal, they would be addicts)?

I am for saving trillions, letting hundreds of thousands out of jail, and culling back an authoritarian police state to let a few LEGAL addicts be.

[Gallowglass]

...If you get a check from the government you should be piss tested. So just a question... if all drugs were legalized today would it be ok with you if private companies still required piss tests?

I don't actually agree that if you get a govt. check you should be piss tested. My politician comment was a rhetorical question. As far as private companies go, I'm OK if they do that now or if they do that whenever drugs are legal. They're private. They can require what they want.

[autumnsky]

Government employees are subject to random drug testing any day and at any time. They get their checks from the government just as welfare slobs do. If they are found to "piss hot", they are canned. I'm sure no one would have an argument about that, so why should some one who gets their check without doing any thing but laying around getting high and f-----g off all day should be any different?
As far as the private sector goes, if the company you work for wants to do random drug and alcohol testing, that's their decision and right. If you disagree with these policies, enjoy working at your $7.00 an hour job the rest of your life and burn one for me!!!

[Banned]

Government employees are subject to random drug testing any day and at any time. They get their checks from the government just as welfare slobs do. If they are found to "piss hot", they are canned. I'm sure no one would have an argument about that, so why should some one who gets their check without doing any thing but laying around getting high and f-----g off all day should be any different?
As far as the private sector goes, if the company you work for wants to do random drug and alcohol testing, that's their decision and right. If you disagree with these policies, enjoy working at your $7.00 an hour job the rest of your life and burn one for me!!!

Did Barry piss hot?

[nakedtwister]

Government employees are subject to random drug testing any day and at any time. They get their checks from the government just as welfare slobs do. If they are found to "piss hot", they are canned. I'm sure no one would have an argument about that, so why should some one who gets their check without doing any thing but laying around getting high and f-----g off all day should be any different?
As far as the private sector goes, if the company you work for wants to do random drug and alcohol testing, that's their decision and right. If you disagree with these policies, enjoy working at your $7.00 an hour job the rest of your life and burn one for me!!!

Did Barry piss hot?

Of course not he used Bidens urine.

[Banned]

Government employees are subject to random drug testing any day and at any time. They get their checks from the government just as welfare slobs do. If they are found to "piss hot", they are canned. I'm sure no one would have an argument about that, so why should some one who gets their check without doing any thing but laying around getting high and f-----g off all day should be any different?
As far as the private sector goes, if the company you work for wants to do random drug and alcohol testing, that's their decision and right. If you disagree with these policies, enjoy working at your $7.00 an hour job the rest of your life and burn one for me!!!

Did Barry piss hot?

Of course not he used Bidens urine.

Knew there had to be a reason he picked Biden.

[Hawk]

Bill you have been playing music for decades, 4 at least. You must know hundreds of musicians. I would presume to say at least some of the musicians you know over the years were not virgins to drugs. I would bet you know hundreds of musicians and music fans who use or have used drugs.

Are all of those people lying in the gutter drug addicts?

If not, why were drug laws needed? You know that anybody can find and do drugs, and I would bet very few people you know are lying in the gutter addicts. You KNOW many people do drugs, yet a very small minority end up as lying in the gutter addicts.

Why do you want authoritarian, totalitarian laws that cost this country trillions of dollars, just to prevent a few fools from doing what they would do any way (drugs legal or illegal, they would be addicts)?

I am for saving trillions, letting hundreds of thousands out of jail, and culling back an authoritarian police state to let a few LEGAL addicts be.

Again:

Joe, we touch on various principles that create a utopia for you that I think are wrong. There is no way to resolve our differences or change our opinions.

You think if all drugs become legal use will not go up. I think use will increase.

You think if business owners who are racist want to discriminate against minorities that is the way it should be. I strongly disagree.

You think that removing all mine regulations is okay. I prefer safety regulations.

You think companies should not have regulations relative to pollution. I strongly disagree.

Legal addictive drugs. More dead streams. More mercury laden fish and more poison in our water and land. More deaths in mines (based on the fact that deaths decreased after safety regulations). Allowing business to ban minorities. AND that's only four of your principals. Your idea of utopia is my idea of hell.

Didn't you tell me drugs were legal in the Netherlands. ? I can't find anything about that. I see that weed is illegal but they choose not to enforce the law. Hard drugs are illegal.

[Banned]

Bill, do you really think I want what you posted? Really?

[Hawk]

Bill, do you really think I want what you posted? Really?

Of course you don't WANT it. You want to allow it via Libertarianism principals.

They ARE the effect of your cause.

[Banned]

So when you see a libertarian, like your guitarist, Lonewolf and myself, you see people who want to affect more drug addiction, dead miners and rivers polluted?

[Hawk]

So when you see a libertarian, like your guitarist, Lonewolf and myself, you see people who want more drug addiction, dead miners and rivers polluted?

No Joe, I have a great respect for each of you. I simply disagree with you on some basic societal principles. I point out the consequences of those principals as I perceive them as I hope you would.

If you have an idea or a principle to follow, follow it through to a logical sequential conclusion and then judge the principal. I judged those principals as bad for society based on my own opinions.

EDIT: I'm judging the principals, not you.

[Banned]

Interesting that you have friends whose principles lead to racism, drug addiction, dead miners and poisoned air and water.

Think you might be misunderstanding our principles? Do we seem to be the kind of friends who are proud of principles that lead to such horrible outcomes?

I would rethink being friends with people who are so gun- ho on enabling racism, drug addictions, death and poisoning of our air and water.

[Hawk]

Interesting that you have friends whose principles lead to racism, drug addiction, dead miners and poisoned air and water.

Think you might be misunderstanding our principles? Do we seem to be the kind of friends who are proud of principles that lead to such horrible outcomes?

I would rethink being friends with people who are so gun- ho on enabling racism, drug addictions, death and poisoning of our air and water.

Why don't you follow Gallowglass's lead and keep the discussion on an intellectual level instead of a personal level. Then re-address my points.

[Banned]

Bill, my principles are part of me, and really cannot be separated in certain ways. When you make statements like you do, you are basically calling me a racist, a poisoner, a polluter, and mine worker murderer.

How am I supposed to accept that shit?

[Hawk]

Bill, my principles are part of me, and really cannot be separated in certain ways. When you make statements like you do, you are basically calling me a racist, a poisoner, a polluter, and mine worker murderer.

How am I supposed to accept that shit?

Okay, do you believe having no regulations for mine safety is right or wrong ? I heard Rand Paul say that there should be NO mine regulations. That's why I picked that topic. Now it is up to you to look in a mirror and see what you stand for ?

Liberterians don't like big government like the EPA. You yourself have posted about regulations against burning coal and you were annoyed about those regulations. But they do pollute the environment, water, fish, air with mercury. One of the EPA restrictions was to be on how much mercury could be released form the coal burning energy plants. So again, look in the mirror and see what you stand for ?

What are the effects of your cause? It seems you have a hard time facing the reality of your version of Liberty and it's consequences.

[RobTheDrummer]

Drug testing does not infringe on rights. You don't get drug tested to live in America. You get drug tested if you choose to accept government assistance. What is so hard to understand about that? They just don't want people to be doing drugs with taxpayer's dollars....it's a real simple issue, I don't know why there is such debate.

I really don't see a correlation between no assistance and crime...explain that to me again?

[Hawk]

I really don't see a correlation between no assistance and crime...explain that to me again?

I simply speculated that if you take away some one's cash, they will turn to crime (steal) to get cash.