Again big difference, we are not talking about a patient under a doctors care, we are talking about drug users that take drugs t oget high. You know that thoughsinnik wrote:
Trust me, I'm not abusing them, they're abusing me..lowing wrote:
YOu are not "taking drugs" in the context of this thread. You are perscribed medicine to help you with your medical condition. If you are abusing them, then that is another matter.sinnik wrote:
sorry retox - totally agree with your post. This ignorant crap by people that have never been there + 8 years of hell on earth = me going on a bit of a rant there...
and yes I take drugs.... perscription ones that they went to court to get a compulsory treatment order to make me take that make no difference other than me having to have a blood screen every couple of months to make sure that the meds aren't dissolving my liver...
To clarify it's an injection every 28 days plus some oral medication at night.
Poll
Should people recieving a welfare check have to pass a urine test?
| Yes | 81% | 81% - 118 | ||||
| No | 18% | 18% - 26 | ||||
| Total: 144 | ||||||
It cracks my up how the liberals will defend peoples right to sponge off of the govt. all the while defending their "intentions" of getting high while they do it.
Liberal ideology will truely be our undoing.
Liberal ideology will truely be our undoing.
Cracks me up how people who likely have no clue about social hardship are so quick to condemn and lump everyone in the same group.lowing wrote:
It cracks my up how the liberals will defend peoples right to sponge off of the govt. all the while defending their "intentions" of getting high while they do it.
Liberal ideology will truely be our undoing.
Truth is I don't support drug use while on social benefits but I refuse to dragnet and persecute based on a small percentage... or is your contention that the vast majority of those on benefits are out of control crack hos?
What about being positive for alcohol then... "oh wait, I can't have a beer with my buddies while watching the game?... better rethink it then." Seeing how many people die every year as a result of alcohol it better be included in your testing.
Finally, what about the cost? Say only 5% of all social assistance applicants return positive for illicit drugs, that's a government waste of 95%! If each test costs $50 dollars then out of a hundred people you'll spend $5000, where only $250 would go to saving the government money by denying benefits with $4750 as waste. Average benefits of $500 a cheque means saving of $2500 from the original program. So the drug tests, even after denying benefits would cost the government $4750 - $2500 = $2250 over what was saved. And that is for 100 people on one cheque run, for everyone on social for any real duration the bloat would be ridiculous. Not too mention the time for testing and appeals (or is a denial of benefits forever?) that would burden an already strained system.
Fail all around.
retox, you have made some good points, and it has been a joy to debate with you, but im gonna have to stick to my guns with this one.
alcohol is legal...ReTox wrote:
Cracks me up how people who likely have no clue about social hardship are so quick to condemn and lump everyone in the same group.lowing wrote:
It cracks my up how the liberals will defend peoples right to sponge off of the govt. all the while defending their "intentions" of getting high while they do it.
Liberal ideology will truely be our undoing.
Truth is I don't support drug use while on social benefits but I refuse to dragnet and persecute based on a small percentage... or is your contention that the vast majority of those on benefits are out of control crack hos?
What about being positive for alcohol then... "oh wait, I can't have a beer with my buddies while watching the game?... better rethink it then." Seeing how many people die every year as a result of alcohol it better be included in your testing.
Finally, what about the cost? Say only 5% of all social assistance applicants return positive for illicit drugs, that's a government waste of 95%! If each test costs $50 dollars then out of a hundred people you'll spend $5000, where only $250 would go to saving the government money by denying benefits with $4750 as waste. Average benefits of $500 a cheque means saving of $2500 from the original program. So the drug tests, even after denying benefits would cost the government $4750 - $2500 = $2250 over what was saved. And that is for 100 people on one cheque run, for everyone on social for any real duration the bloat would be ridiculous. Not too mention the time for testing and appeals (or is a denial of benefits forever?) that would burden an already strained system.
Fail all around.
and yes it would cost money to test these welfare recipients... but how much will be saved by preventing people from buying drugs and the possibilty of violence and health related issues... If everyone that tests positive doesn't get a check... That would add up quickly and maybe help the people out who really need help...
Love is the answer
Yeah, and conservative ideology will keep us safe and strong, huh.lowing wrote:
It cracks my up how the liberals will defend peoples right to sponge off of the govt. all the while defending their "intentions" of getting high while they do it.
Liberal ideology will truely be our undoing.
Government doesn't work that way though. If a department is hemorrhaging money, regardless if there are secondary savings in health care, police, fire, etc the Gov will shut it down or make changes to stop the losses.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
alcohol is legal...
and yes it would cost money to test these welfare recipients... but how much will be saved by preventing people from buying drugs and the possibilty of violence and health related issues... If everyone that tests positive doesn't get a check... That would add up quickly and maybe help the people out who really need help...
As for alcohol, I see far more people drinking their social assistance away than tokin' it up. Legal or not it's probably more of a burden on the system than dope.
Is the idea of the drug test to stop illegal activity or just to make sure tax payer money isn't being wasted? If it's to stop waste than you'll also need to add the alcohol provision, probably a gambling one, and create a list of state sanctioned purchases while under the assistance of the government.
If it is to stop criminal activity then you have to abide by the laws of your region which usually includes a probably cause section into which dragnets tend to not fall. At what point does a reasonable expectation of privacy cease to exist?
i wonder wich would save us more money.... drug testing those who get govt aid or making the pentagon stop paying 300 $ for a 5 $ toilet seat or a 500 $ hammer thats 9$ at home depot.
they need to check these people who are 2nd ,3rd,4th generation welfare cases, the ones who have kids just so they dont have to work,the ones who teach their kids its ok to grow up on welfare and thats a way of life that is owed to them simply because they live in the us.
also dont group everyone in this what about those on disabilty with real pain?? should they be forced to take perscribed drugs no matter what? should they be singled out and put their checks in jepordy? if you have mind bending life altering pain i think you should be allowed to smoke all you want to find other ways of knocking down the pain.
dont get me wrong here herion,crack,meth that shit is just wrong and no reason for it.
what about someone with cancer you gona tell them sry but were gona take away your meds,weed, disabilty and you can suffer till you die. sry i couldnt do that to someone. id have to roll them a fattie.
say you have lupus and its reeking havoc on your body and no matter what the dr's cant get you to gain weight and eat. i know someone in that situation dr told her smoke a little and see if it helps. guess what it does she gained some weight was eating again wich helped her fight off the lupus into remission. it helped her from getting sick from all the meds if your puking all your meds out it aint gona help ya one bit. basically it was a last try if it didnt work this person wouldnt be here today.
what if you have such bad pain you can either eat oxycontins and lay there like a veggie or take morphine,demerol till your a veggie on the couch to be pain free, and have to have some one drive you around,care for you cook ,clean shop,wash clothes etc,become a hermit because your so drugged up you forget family friends etc.
or take handfuls of pills that dont quite cut the pain. or you could take a couple of pain pills and smoke a little and still be a functional person,be around family,take care or your self. you might not be pain free but its tolerable.
i wonder wich would be better.
they need to check these people who are 2nd ,3rd,4th generation welfare cases, the ones who have kids just so they dont have to work,the ones who teach their kids its ok to grow up on welfare and thats a way of life that is owed to them simply because they live in the us.
also dont group everyone in this what about those on disabilty with real pain?? should they be forced to take perscribed drugs no matter what? should they be singled out and put their checks in jepordy? if you have mind bending life altering pain i think you should be allowed to smoke all you want to find other ways of knocking down the pain.
dont get me wrong here herion,crack,meth that shit is just wrong and no reason for it.
what about someone with cancer you gona tell them sry but were gona take away your meds,weed, disabilty and you can suffer till you die. sry i couldnt do that to someone. id have to roll them a fattie.
say you have lupus and its reeking havoc on your body and no matter what the dr's cant get you to gain weight and eat. i know someone in that situation dr told her smoke a little and see if it helps. guess what it does she gained some weight was eating again wich helped her fight off the lupus into remission. it helped her from getting sick from all the meds if your puking all your meds out it aint gona help ya one bit. basically it was a last try if it didnt work this person wouldnt be here today.
what if you have such bad pain you can either eat oxycontins and lay there like a veggie or take morphine,demerol till your a veggie on the couch to be pain free, and have to have some one drive you around,care for you cook ,clean shop,wash clothes etc,become a hermit because your so drugged up you forget family friends etc.
or take handfuls of pills that dont quite cut the pain. or you could take a couple of pain pills and smoke a little and still be a functional person,be around family,take care or your self. you might not be pain free but its tolerable.
i wonder wich would be better.
you learn the true meaning of life when you see houses and cars blow by like leaves on a windy day.
Err we've not even broached on the subject of false positive either.... Take some paracetemol with codiene in it a day or 2 before your test and bang you're a heroin user if they test your pee- same with benzodiazepines (valium etc), all synthesied from the opium...piss test still sound workable then?
You guys are right... let's keep it the way it is... trying to keep people from using welfare for drugs is a bad idea...
Love is the answer
Now that makes huge sense. +1LOG wrote:
i wonder wich would save us more money.... drug testing those who get govt aid or making the pentagon stop paying 300 $ for a 5 $ toilet seat or a 500 $ hammer thats 9$ at home depot.
they need to check these people who are 2nd ,3rd,4th generation welfare cases, the ones who have kids just so they dont have to work,the ones who teach their kids its ok to grow up on welfare and thats a way of life that is owed to them simply because they live in the us.
I'm not advocating that at all. In fact I fully agree with your point, just not the idea of everyone having drug tests. Social workers are supposed to be in touch with their case clients, at least that is what it is like in Canada. If they suspect drug abuse then order a drug test but being required to piss just to be considered is salt in the wound imo.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
You guys are right... let's keep it the way it is... trying to keep people from using welfare for drugs is a bad idea...
Last edited by ReTox (2008-03-07 14:14:28)
I think this would violate ones 5th Amendment right to self-incrimination.
That's why, as part of the urinalysis process, you provide a list of any medications (prescribed or OTC) that you are taking. That way, if a positive test does come up, they can quickly rule out those situations.sinnik wrote:
Err we've not even broached on the subject of false positive either.... Take some paracetemol with codiene in it a day or 2 before your test and bang you're a heroin user if they test your pee- same with benzodiazepines (valium etc), all synthesied from the opium...piss test still sound workable then?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
im still not convinced.
like i said, there are generations of people that have learned to live off the government.
like i said, there are generations of people that have learned to live off the government.
This would be a screening for illegal drugs only. If you have non-prescription illegal drugs in your system, you automatically forfeit your checks for 1 month on the first offense. Second Offense is 6 months. Third Offense expels you from the program.
If you are on prescription drugs, bring a Doctor's note for christ sakes. Figured that one to be common sense.
If you are on prescription drugs, bring a Doctor's note for christ sakes. Figured that one to be common sense.
how about people who test positive when they go to pick up their welfare check, can only receive there money after each session of rehab or some sort of counseling.
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
Actually, I have just come off a string of self induced bad luck myself. Bad business decisions coupled with trying to keep a marriage afloat has rendered me jobless, homeless and quite broke just a year and a half. and guess what, I never not once took a penny of social welfare or even unemployment. I refused. I had put myself in that position and I was hell bent on getting myself out of it. So basically I have every right to speak my mind on this issue.ReTox wrote:
Cracks me up how people who likely have no clue about social hardship are so quick to condemn and lump everyone in the same group.lowing wrote:
It cracks my up how the liberals will defend peoples right to sponge off of the govt. all the while defending their "intentions" of getting high while they do it.
Liberal ideology will truely be our undoing.
Truth is I don't support drug use while on social benefits but I refuse to dragnet and persecute based on a small percentage... or is your contention that the vast majority of those on benefits are out of control crack hos?
What about being positive for alcohol then... "oh wait, I can't have a beer with my buddies while watching the game?... better rethink it then." Seeing how many people die every year as a result of alcohol it better be included in your testing.
Finally, what about the cost? Say only 5% of all social assistance applicants return positive for illicit drugs, that's a government waste of 95%! If each test costs $50 dollars then out of a hundred people you'll spend $5000, where only $250 would go to saving the government money by denying benefits with $4750 as waste. Average benefits of $500 a cheque means saving of $2500 from the original program. So the drug tests, even after denying benefits would cost the government $4750 - $2500 = $2250 over what was saved. And that is for 100 people on one cheque run, for everyone on social for any real duration the bloat would be ridiculous. Not too mention the time for testing and appeals (or is a denial of benefits forever?) that would burden an already strained system.
Fail all around.
I feel if the truth be known more people are using illegal drugs than either of us could believe.
Alcohol is not an illegal, drug so moving on.
A program could be set up where welfare recipients are randomly pooled for testing. A no show is a suspension of benefits until the test is taken. A positive is a suspension for 6 months from the time of testing. A second positive is a year, a third is life time.
Certain employers do random drug testing all the time. No big deal.
Well every job i've had recently must think everyone is a drug addict also since i had to take a drug test to get the job.ReTox wrote:
Basically you want to have a policy that implies everyone on welfare is a drug addict. Have you ever been on welfare? Probably not so you have no fucking clue what you are on about.
Sorry to hear about your bad luck, been there myself although through different circumstances.lowing wrote:
Actually, I have just come off a string of self induced bad luck myself. Bad business decisions coupled with trying to keep a marriage afloat has rendered me jobless, homeless and quite broke just a year and a half. and guess what, I never not once took a penny of social welfare or even unemployment. I refused. I had put myself in that position and I was hell bent on getting myself out of it. So basically I have every right to speak my mind on this issue.
I feel if the truth be known more people are using illegal drugs than either of us could believe.
Alcohol is not an illegal, drug so moving on.
A program could be set up where welfare recipients are randomly pooled for testing. A no show is a suspension of benefits until the test is taken. A positive is a suspension for 6 months from the time of testing. A second positive is a year, a third is life time.
Certain employers do random drug testing all the time. No big deal.
Your choice not to ask for help and I respect that, but those that need that help still shouldn't be treated as criminals. I'm guessing your pride was the major factor in not seeking assistance so would your pride be bruised more if you had of sought help and been told they thought you were a drug user and needed to make sure? I know I would be offended. Here I am down on my luck and you (the social worker) wants to treat me like a criminal? No thanks.
That's my point. I have no doubt abuse of the system happens, but persecuting everyone for the problems of a few isn't the way to go. Too many possible flaws in mandatory drug testing imo for it to be viable. I do agree that abuse should be dealt with but my version has to do with reform and rehabilitation instead of punishment.
I just can't cast human beings aside like trash just because they have a problem or live a life I might not approve of. My own pride couldn't stand for it.
I wish you well.
Last edited by ReTox (2008-03-07 17:41:49)
But we're not calling you a criminal. We're just making sure you're not on drugs. And a urine test is hardly persecution. It's a safety measure. I don't feel persecuted when I take one. I understand the company wants to make sure that I am not going to show up to the job site completely blitzed and become a liability to myself and the company. The same thing with Welfare. If we're going to help you, we want to make sure that the money being used is for a good cause. I Know several people on welfare, and they aren't on drugs. But go and visit a town like Oakland, or Richmond, and tell me that there isn't some abuse of the system. Perhaps this wouldn't be a national standard, rather a more localized one, but I don't think thats fair.ReTox wrote:
I know I would be offended. Here I am down on my luck and you (the social worker) wants to treat me like a criminal? No thanks.
That's my point. I have no doubt abuse of the system happens, but persecuting everyone for the problems of a few isn't the way to go. Too many possible flaws in mandatory drug testing imo for it to be viable. I do agree that abuse should be dealt with but my version has to do with reform and rehabilitation instead of punishment.
I just can't cast human beings aside like trash just because they have a problem or live a life I might not approve of. My own pride couldn't stand for it.
I wish you well.
Call it Investment security.
Last edited by Major.League.Infidel (2008-03-07 17:09:22)
Demanding I take a drug test implies a suspicion without probable cause. That is exactly what persecution is (Persecution is persistent mistreatment of an individual/group by another group.) Doesn't need to be physical to be mistreatment and seeing as the recommendation is a test before receiving each benefits allowance I would call it persistent as well.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
But we're not calling you a criminal. We're just making sure you're not on drugs. And a urine test is hardly persecution. It's a safety measure. I don't feel persecuted when I take one. I understand the company wants to make sure that I am not going to show up to the job site completely blitzed and become a liability to myself and the company. The same thing with Welfare. If we're going to help you, we want to make sure that the money being used is for a good cause. I Know several people on welfare, and they aren't on drugs. But go and visit a town like Oakland, or Richmond, and tell me that there isn't some abuse of the system. Perhaps this wouldn't be a national standard, rather a more localized one, but I don't think thats fair.ReTox wrote:
I know I would be offended. Here I am down on my luck and you (the social worker) wants to treat me like a criminal? No thanks.
That's my point. I have no doubt abuse of the system happens, but persecuting everyone for the problems of a few isn't the way to go. Too many possible flaws in mandatory drug testing imo for it to be viable. I do agree that abuse should be dealt with but my version has to do with reform and rehabilitation instead of punishment.
I just can't cast human beings aside like trash just because they have a problem or live a life I might not approve of. My own pride couldn't stand for it.
I wish you well.
Call it Investment security.
And what happens if we cut those that do abuse the system off? "Wow look Johnny, the crime rate just doubled!?" Send them to rehab on my tax dollar please, at least give them a chance to make a positive change.
well i'd better go file a persecution complaint against my new job because they suspected me as a drug user without probable cause.ReTox wrote:
Demanding I take a drug test implies a suspicion without probable cause. That is exactly what persecution is (Persecution is persistent mistreatment of an individual/group by another group.) Doesn't need to be physical to be mistreatment and seeing as the recommendation is a test before receiving each benefits allowance I would call it persistent as well.
And what happens if we cut those that do abuse the system off? "Wow look Johnny, the crime rate just doubled!?" Send them to rehab on my tax dollar please, at least give them a chance to make a positive change.
A private employer is NOT the same as the government and not the same as civilians being involved with public government programs.jaymz9350 wrote:
well i'd better go file a persecution complaint against my new job because they suspected me as a drug user without probable cause.ReTox wrote:
Demanding I take a drug test implies a suspicion without probable cause. That is exactly what persecution is (Persecution is persistent mistreatment of an individual/group by another group.) Doesn't need to be physical to be mistreatment and seeing as the recommendation is a test before receiving each benefits allowance I would call it persistent as well.
And what happens if we cut those that do abuse the system off? "Wow look Johnny, the crime rate just doubled!?" Send them to rehab on my tax dollar please, at least give them a chance to make a positive change.
Let's try to not be so obtuse shall we?