BF2S Forums Urine Test

WOW
I says CHIP everyone... the chip can take samples of drug and EtOH levels and if people are found abusing "the system" then we can simple turn off their chip and kill them.....

Did I get you???? LOL

I voted no, testing is a dumb waste of time and money and would far exceed the benefit of catching the few abusers

Its like prison where a good percentage of people in prison have a mental disease

people on welfare who are on drugs are probably mentally ill and self medicating or just self medicating
If you are going to test for drugs then test for mental illness TOO and I bet that testing for mental illness will cost a lot more money than would be saved by cutting them off welfare.

Besides I would rather have the crazies self medicated and in their rooms than on the streets running crazy and robbing and killing people.

I say all welfare recipients should be forced to smoke grass to make them nice and compliant and docile and sleepy..... that's cheap public safety

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2008-03-07 20:32:48)

ReTox wrote:

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.

Sorry to hear about your bad luck, been there myself although through different circumstances.

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.

People get drug tested all the time, they are not treated as criminals. Is it really so terrible a notion to expect and demand that if you take money from the tax payers that the tax payers have a right to know that that money is used to do good?

Drug testing is not persecution. False positives are rare, and if you get one you get tested a second time. As a matter of fact they always take 2 samples from you during testing anyway. No biggie.

Honestly, I has been drug tested my entire adult life ( working in aviation) and the only people that usually had a problem with it are those that are doing drugs.

I do not endorse casting aside human beings who have a problem. I endorse letting human beings make their own choices, and if they choose to jump off a cliff with drugs, so be it. I honestly do not give a shit. If they choose to sponge off of me through social programs than I will be damned if I want my money going to support their drug habits.
Also, I gotta ask......How do you expect to "reform" or "rehabilitate" drug users, if you refuse to find out who needs reforming or rehabilitating?

I'd prefer it if they fail a drugs test their welfare money is put towards rehab

The last thing anybody needs is more angry junkies on the streets looking for cash.

Pros:
+ Not paying for scum to get high.... = Taxpayers Win

Cons:
+ Costs of running tests would probably be way more than saved = Taxpayers Loose
+ Anyone found out, get no money, so resorts to crime to get fix (or just food) = Taxpayers Loose + Crime Up
+ Anyone found out, get no money, so if they have family/kids they suffer more likely to turn to crime  = Innocents suffer + Crime Up

Doesn't sound like a win for the taxpayer or society.

Maybe if caught they get dragged off to do a long day of community service (before getting a reduced amount of money). They could do shitty jobs to re-coop the money to at least pay for the tests, and if its hard/shitty work they will have more reason not to do it again.

lowing wrote:

Is it really so terrible a notion to expect and demand that if you take money from the tax payers that the tax payers have a right to know that that money is used to do good?

See that bothers me even more.  Not that tax payers don't have the right to expect their funds are being used properly but that in that same breath they won't think twice about billions going to someplace over there.

Government waste is a problem for most countries and thinking that drug tests might save a few dollars, but will more likely cost even more, would actually make a difference is laughable.  It's a snowflake versus an avalanche.

Want to make sure the tax payers monies are being used right then ask the government to account for even penny sent overseas... seeing as the US lost $12B in Iraq it looks like it is seriously needed.  Hell, I have a very good friend involved in a lawsuit because he found 50 Million dollars of fraud in a US Government contracts program.  This fraud was done by a handful of people.  Compared to stopping Pedro from getting his Mary Jane I know where I'd put my energies for investigation.

...fascists...

ReTox wrote:

lowing wrote:

Is it really so terrible a notion to expect and demand that if you take money from the tax payers that the tax payers have a right to know that that money is used to do good?

See that bothers me even more.  Not that tax payers don't have the right to expect their funds are being used properly but that in that same breath they won't think twice about billions going to someplace over there.

Government waste is a problem for most countries and thinking that drug tests might save a few dollars, but will more likely cost even more, would actually make a difference is laughable.  It's a snowflake versus an avalanche.

Want to make sure the tax payers monies are being used right then ask the government to account for even penny sent overseas... seeing as the US lost $12B in Iraq it looks like it is seriously needed.  Hell, I have a very good friend involved in a lawsuit because he found 50 Million dollars of fraud in a US Government contracts program.  This fraud was done by a handful of people.  Compared to stopping Pedro from getting his Mary Jane I know where I'd put my energies for investigation.

Every year I seem to need to post this.  All of you that pay taxes in the US, and have your 1040 booklet near at hand, look to the page just before the index.    This shows two pie graphs. 

The first graph shows where the federal goverment gets its money from:

Personal income taxes: 39%
Taxes; social security, medicare, unemployment and other retirement: 32%
Corperate income taxes: 13%
Borrowing to cover the deficit: 9%
Taxes; Excise, customs, estate, gift, and misc: 7%

The second graph shows the expenditures of the goverment:

Social security, Medicare, and other retirement: 36%
National Defense, veterens, and foreign affairs: 23% (more to discuss in a moment)
Social Programs: 19%
Physical, human, and community development: 12%
Net intrest on the debt: 8%
Law enfircement and general government: 2%

Of that national defense catagory?

1% to pay for international activities, including military and economic assistance to forgeign countries and the mainenance of US embassies abroad. (that is 1% of the total government expenditures, or 1/23 of the national defense catagory)

3% Veterans benifits and services.  This is running the entire VA system, including all of the VA hospitals as well as all of the disability beniftits, as well as all of the other stuff.

19% This is the biggie.  The US military.  19% of our goverment expenditure gets you:
Outlays to equip, modernize and pay our armed forces AND fund the War on Terrororism AND other national defense activities.

My point?  Social programs count for as much of the budget as not only running the entire US military, but also the war on terror and all of the activities in Iraq.  In times of 'peace,' the social programs outstrip the funds spent on National Defense.  And that is not even including Social Security and Medicare into it.  Or the whole catagory of "Physical, human, and community development."

You want to worry about government waste and expenditures, don't simply obsess over the military and the war.  Look a bit closer to home.

ReTox wrote:

lowing wrote:

ReTox wrote:

See that bothers me even more.  Not that tax payers don't have the right to expect their funds are being used properly but that in that same breath they won't think twice about billions going to someplace over there.

Government waste is a problem for most countries and thinking that drug tests might save a few dollars, but will more likely cost even more, would actually make a difference is laughable.  It's a snowflake versus an avalanche.

Want to make sure the tax payers monies are being used right then ask the government to account for even penny sent overseas... seeing as the US lost $12B in Iraq it looks like it is seriously needed.  Hell, I have a very good friend involved in a lawsuit because he found 50 Million dollars of fraud in a US Government contracts program.  This fraud was done by a handful of people.  Compared to stopping Pedro from getting his Mary Jane I know where I'd put my energies for investigation.

ok then start a thread on how we can solve other govt. waste.

In this case it seems you agree welfare recipients should be tested and it is a matter of the economics that you are worried about. No problem, like all BF2S topics we can solve this as well.

Where did I say I agree?  I said tax payers have the right to expect their funds are used correctly, very different from demanding every single person on welfare take a drug test without probable cause just "in case".  I'm a tax player and if my government did that I would call it an extreme waste of money.

I support actions for government policies when a clear case of abuse is shown but dragnets for the off chance are a waste and an insult to those decent people who are already dealing with enough already than to be subjected to a stereotype.

If you go to get your cheque and you're stoned out of your gord then yes, a drug test could and maybe should be ordered by your case worker.  Not to deny you benefits but to get you help so you can get the fuck off of assistance.  Repeated problems should be looked at on a case by case basis.  Lumping everyone in the same pool doesn't help anyone.

Then you agree the tax payers deserve guarantees from the welfare recipients, you are just not willing to get it.

I think that people on welfare should have to Mow the lawns and wash the cars of people not on welfare.  Hell it is my tax money supporting them.  They should at least have to Mow 1 yard and wash a couple cars a day.  It would only take them like 1.5 hrs and I don't think that is asking too much from them.

Damn, and I'm not just saying this because I just put in a 48hr work week and am going to have to spend my day off washing my damn car and mowing my f*ing lawn.

ReTox wrote:

lowing wrote:

Then you agree the tax payers deserve guarantees from the welfare recipients, you are just not willing to get it.

No, you don't get it.  Tax payers have the right to expect their monies are being used properly to fund the programs and initiatives the governments put forth but they should not expect governments to waste their money on something that would likely cost more than it would save.  Testing every single person is simply not economically intelligent if your goal is trying to save money.

You want to save money by denying someone benefits than first you must have a good reason, and throwing a net to see what you can catch is not a valid reason.  You must then proof the suspicions or observations based on that reason.  Having no reason at all except "well you may be a stoner" just doesn't cut it.

If you suspect me of abuse then fine, ask me if I'm a wasteoid and if I'm using my benefits to buy my poisons.  I'll tell you the truth, ask me to take a drug test for verification and I may do it willingly or I may not.  I have a right to my privacy, at least some of it.  Forcing me and everyone else without probable cause is implying that I engage in criminal activity.  Why not simply do a background check to see if I have a record?  If I don't then can you justify suspecting that I am?

This is not about an employer who's own money is being used to pay you, this is about a public system that many of the recipients have paid into themselves.


And here's another thought, a correlation even... would you accept having your house searched and your computer forensically scanned in order to get benefits?  You may be doing something illegal there so is that any different?  Got any copies of movies or music you've "conveniently found somewhere but you can't remember exactly where"?

You have conveniently forgot that I said RANDOM drug testing, which means not everyone all the time, but a certain percentage unannounced. If you get caught you get stung. What is the problem??

You have an absolute right to your privacy, and unfortunately when you expect to use public money to live off of, your right to privacy should be superseded by the tax payers right to know what you are doing with THEIR money. What does piracy laws have to do with welfare recipients getting drug tested as a contingent for benefits?

Be sure you don't fall off the cliff with such a long stretch reaching for an argument.

lowing wrote:

You have conveniently forgot that I said RANDOM drug testing, which means not everyone all the time, but a certain percentage unannounced. If you get caught you get stung. What is the problem??

You have an absolute right to your privacy, and unfortunately when you expect to use public money to live off of, your right to privacy should be superseded by the tax payers right to know what you are doing with THEIR money. What does piracy laws have to do with welfare recipients getting drug tested as a contingent for benefits?

Be sure you don't fall off the cliff with such a long stretch reaching for an argument.

You keep assuming that a welfare recipient has never paid taxes.  Why should they not be allowed to use programs they may have paid into all their working lives?  And no matter how public your life is or your job or the money you bring in you are still, by law, granted privacy rights.

Or is it your contention that anyone who lives off tax payer money should be held to the same standards?  If so then call the white house and order some tests... pretty sure someone's been into the crack there.


And just for the info:  Substances that cause false positives as of Jan 8th 2008


hint... there's a shitload!

lowing wrote:

Personal responsibility is like kryptonite to a liberal......Why should you exercise it when you can pawn it off on someone else, like the tax payers.

I'm guessing this is directed at me and if so then keep your labels to yourself.  I'm not a liberal or a conservative and personal responsibility and accountability happens to be very important to my own ethics.  What I am is someone who believes every person is different and refuses to define a social class because of the bullshit stereotypes that you seem to need to define them by.