"Downright Unconstitutional!!" Drug Screening for Welfare in Florida.

2011-07-04 02:16:50

#76

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

And what is the alternative? Continue to fund a spiraling habit until they eventually kills themselves? If there's another consequence it may motivate the addict to reform their behavior. Consequence is the only thing that can get through to someone with an addiction. Siphoning taxpayer money to drug dealers via addicts is not fair to the people who are trying to better themselves legitimately. Those who are forced to rely on the safety net also suffer from the actions of abusers.

Also, If someone needs help with their addiction it is financially prudent to help in the interim.
As I mentioned before, the state is not abandoning people who are asking for help .. addicted or otherwise.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-04 04:49:12

#77

globefish23: sophisticated slacker; +334|6564|Graz, Austria

lowing wrote:
Wreckognize wrote:
I'm only ok with this if alcohol is included in the screening.
well, that will only be good if they show up drunk. wouldn't mean anything if they can stay drunk all the way up until "check day", then go draw a check.

Ehrm, there are pathological symptoms of alcoholism that would be tested for.
You can be piss drunk without being an alcoholic.

Conversely, depending on the drug and the testing method, you can show up "clean" at the drug screening too, so I think and hope that additional methods are used besides a chemical check.

IMO, drug users that can't take proper care should get their children taken away if they fail to their rehab with a sustainable success.

2011-07-04 05:53:00

#78

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

rdx-fx wrote:
If it is legal for an employer to drug test employees, it should be just as legal to drug test welfare recipients.

Not really, there are no health and safety or liability issues for people on welfare.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-04 06:07:26

#79

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
If it is legal for an employer to drug test employees, it should be just as legal to drug test welfare recipients.
Not really, there are no health and safety or liability issues for people on welfare.

lol, why am not surprised by Dilbert defending some crackheads right to taxpayer support while they indulge in illegal activity.

2011-07-04 06:15:36

#80

UnkleRukus: That Guy; +236|5276|Massachusetts, USA

Drug testing welfare recipients should be totally legal. If they want government money then they should be responsible enough to stop using and get their shit together. Even when I was unemployed, I quit smokin weed. Just because it's 100x easier to find a job when you aren't getting high.

The unemployment offices in my area are chock full of rednecks, gang bangers, hood rats, a whole smorgasbord of the dregs of society. 75% of them brought it upon themselves, but it's partially not their fault. Considering they receive more per week on unemployment then working an actually 40 hour a week job. That last bit i wish wasn't true.

Anyways, if you can't pass a drug test to get a job, then you shouldn't collect unemployment. Simple as that.

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.

2011-07-04 06:22:40

#81

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
If it is legal for an employer to drug test employees, it should be just as legal to drug test welfare recipients.
Not really, there are no health and safety or liability issues for people on welfare.
lol, why am not surprised by Dilbert defending some crackheads right to taxpayer support while they indulge in illegal activity.

How is it your problem?

Going out and earning more money will net you far more benefit than wailing about how taxes are spent.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-04 06:31:27

#82

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:
lowing wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

Not really, there are no health and safety or liability issues for people on welfare.
lol, why am not surprised by Dilbert defending some crackheads right to taxpayer support while they indulge in illegal activity.
How is it your problem?

Going out and earning more money will net you far more benefit than wailing about how taxes are spent.

lol, and I am even less surprised that he is serious.

Ok, how is it my problem? It is my problem because I am paying for it, forcing me ot wrk harder to support my family legally, so some crackhead can live his non-productive illegal life style.

I shouldn't have to go out and work harder to net more of MY money to stop the bleeding, is the problem Dilbert.

2011-07-04 06:37:39

#83

UnkleRukus: That Guy; +236|5276|Massachusetts, USA

Dilbert_X wrote:
lowing wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

Not really, there are no health and safety or liability issues for people on welfare.
lol, why am not surprised by Dilbert defending some crackheads right to taxpayer support while they indulge in illegal activity.
How is it your problem?

Going out and earning more money will net you far more benefit than wailing about how taxes are spent.

So it's okay for millions of people to be funded by the government to not give a damn and sit around all day shooting smack or making more babies to overpopulate the earth with?

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.

2011-07-04 06:54:40

#84

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

UnkleRukus wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
lowing wrote:

lol, why am not surprised by Dilbert defending some crackheads right to taxpayer support while they indulge in illegal activity.
How is it your problem?

Going out and earning more money will net you far more benefit than wailing about how taxes are spent.
So it's okay for millions of people to be funded by the government to not give a damn and sit around all day shooting smack or making more babies to overpopulate the earth with?

Welcome to the world of liberal logic.

2011-07-04 07:11:35

#85

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

The ACLU is at least consistent on the issue. They oppose employer drug testing too on the grounds that its an invasion of privacy and a workers off time. The problem with drug testing is that it's not instant read, i.e. is this person high or drunk now? If not, what grounds do I have to sanction him for his off duty lifestyle? Unless you are on call 24/7 this is a serious intrusion.

As for welfare recipients, I would toss them into the on call 24/7 pool. Why they aren't asked to do any work at all for the money is beyond me. Have them pick up trash or plant flowers or something. The ACLU would fight that as 'degrading' though

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-04 07:28:02

#86

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

Jay wrote:
The ACLU is at least consistent on the issue. They oppose employer drug testing too on the grounds that its an invasion of privacy and a workers off time. The problem with drug testing is that it's not instant read, i.e. is this person high or drunk now? If not, what grounds do I have to sanction him for his off duty lifestyle? Unless you are on call 24/7 this is a serious intrusion.

As for welfare recipients, I would toss them into the on call 24/7 pool. Why they aren't asked to do any work at all for the money is beyond me. Have them pick up trash or plant flowers or something. The ACLU would fight that as 'degrading' though

It is not an invasion of privacy, the employer asks and makes full disclosure as part of the job application and hiring process that drug testing is part of their process and they do not want drugs as part of their employees lives. They have every right to seek a drug free work force. If you agree then you pretty much have nothing to say about it. If you do not agree and you think it is a violation of your privacy, don't take the job. Because contrary to popular the belief the job belongs to the employer NOT the employee.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-04 07:31:54)

2011-07-04 07:56:58

#87

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

lowing wrote:
Jay wrote:
The ACLU is at least consistent on the issue. They oppose employer drug testing too on the grounds that its an invasion of privacy and a workers off time. The problem with drug testing is that it's not instant read, i.e. is this person high or drunk now? If not, what grounds do I have to sanction him for his off duty lifestyle? Unless you are on call 24/7 this is a serious intrusion.

As for welfare recipients, I would toss them into the on call 24/7 pool. Why they aren't asked to do any work at all for the money is beyond me. Have them pick up trash or plant flowers or something. The ACLU would fight that as 'degrading' though
It is not an invasion of privacy, the employer asks and makes full disclosure as part of the job application and hiring process that drug testing is part of their process and they do not want drugs as part of their employees lives. They have every right to seek a drug free work force. If you agree then you pretty much have nothing to say about it. If you do not agree and you think it is a violation of your privacy, don't take the job. Because contrary to popular the belief the job belongs to the employer NOT the employee.

So then you would be ok with your job setting up a mandatory exercise program, dictating what you eat, and when you go to bed so that your employer can ensure he is getting the maximally productive you? What I do at home is my business, not my employers. If they are unhappy with my production at work they can fire me for that, not because I smoked a doobie a month ago while on vacation.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-04 07:59:20

#88

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5477|Cleveland, Ohio

Jay wrote:
So then you would be ok with your job setting up a mandatory exercise program, dictating what you eat, and when you go to bed so that your employer can ensure he is getting the maximally productive you? What I do at home is my business, not my employers. If they are unhappy with my production at work they can fire me for that, not because I smoked a doobie a month ago while on vacation.

erm so you would be ok with your pilot getting stoned every night in the privacy of his home?

2011-07-04 08:00:31

#89

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5826

Pot doesn't give people hangovers marine.

2011-07-04 08:01:16

#90

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5477|Cleveland, Ohio

so you would be ok with your pilot doing hits of acid every night?

2011-07-04 08:03:18

#91

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:
Jay wrote:
So then you would be ok with your job setting up a mandatory exercise program, dictating what you eat, and when you go to bed so that your employer can ensure he is getting the maximally productive you? What I do at home is my business, not my employers. If they are unhappy with my production at work they can fire me for that, not because I smoked a doobie a month ago while on vacation.
erm so you would be ok with your pilot getting stoned every night in the privacy of his home?

As long as he's not on call, sure. It stays active in the system for a shorter duration than booze.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-04 08:04:32

#92

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:
so you would be ok with your pilot doing hits of acid every night?

No one does acid every night, and it still stays in the system less long than booze.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-04 08:05:07

#93

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5477|Cleveland, Ohio

Jay wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
Jay wrote:
So then you would be ok with your job setting up a mandatory exercise program, dictating what you eat, and when you go to bed so that your employer can ensure he is getting the maximally productive you? What I do at home is my business, not my employers. If they are unhappy with my production at work they can fire me for that, not because I smoked a doobie a month ago while on vacation.
erm so you would be ok with your pilot getting stoned every night in the privacy of his home?
As long as he's not on call, sure. It stays active in the system for a shorter duration than booze.

well the faa disagrees. so, why is there no uproar for people who work in aviation who get random testing (alcohol also) all the time yet you guys have gone on for 4 pages about testing unproductive leeches?

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-07-04 08:10:53)

2011-07-04 08:05:26

#94

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5826

Jay wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
so you would be ok with your pilot doing hits of acid every night?
No one does acid every night, and it still stays in the system less long than booze.

You'll lose your mind if you did it every night.

2011-07-04 08:05:47

#95

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5477|Cleveland, Ohio

Jay wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
so you would be ok with your pilot doing hits of acid every night?
No one does acid every night, and it still stays in the system less long than booze.

true. but there is one little fact you are missing. one is illegal.

2011-07-04 08:11:39

#96

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:
Jay wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
so you would be ok with your pilot doing hits of acid every night?
No one does acid every night, and it still stays in the system less long than booze.
true. but there is one little fact you are missing. one is illegal.

Thanks for pointing that out Captain Obvious. It's illegal because of ignorant moralistic meddling fools.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-04 08:20:47

#97

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

Jay wrote:
lowing wrote:
Jay wrote:
The ACLU is at least consistent on the issue. They oppose employer drug testing too on the grounds that its an invasion of privacy and a workers off time. The problem with drug testing is that it's not instant read, i.e. is this person high or drunk now? If not, what grounds do I have to sanction him for his off duty lifestyle? Unless you are on call 24/7 this is a serious intrusion.

As for welfare recipients, I would toss them into the on call 24/7 pool. Why they aren't asked to do any work at all for the money is beyond me. Have them pick up trash or plant flowers or something. The ACLU would fight that as 'degrading' though
It is not an invasion of privacy, the employer asks and makes full disclosure as part of the job application and hiring process that drug testing is part of their process and they do not want drugs as part of their employees lives. They have every right to seek a drug free work force. If you agree then you pretty much have nothing to say about it. If you do not agree and you think it is a violation of your privacy, don't take the job. Because contrary to popular the belief the job belongs to the employer NOT the employee.
So then you would be ok with your job setting up a mandatory exercise program, dictating what you eat, and when you go to bed so that your employer can ensure he is getting the maximally productive you? What I do at home is my business, not my employers. If they are unhappy with my production at work they can fire me for that, not because I smoked a doobie a month ago while on vacation.

LOL, if my company told me when I applied for THEIR job, that a mandatory exercise program was in place and I took the job anyway, how could I bitch about it? The employer has every right to hire who they want, and if they want to hire a drug free work force, isn't their prerogative?

2011-07-04 08:21:22

#98

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5499|foggy bottom

have you ever been on or been around people on acid?

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-04 08:27:17

#99

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:
have you ever been on or been around people on acid?

Yes. I stood outside on my buddies front lawn counting every vein in every leaf on a tree for a few hours. Did it just the one time.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-04 08:29:15

#100

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5499|foggy bottom

ive never tried it before but ive been around people doing that shit all the time when i was a kid. i remember my buddy freaking out running around the school hallways during class cus he took like 9 drops. he was freaking out bad. I also noticed how people who claim to have done acid more than a dozen times are a little off in the head.

Tu Stultus Es

BF2S Forums "Downright Unconstitutional!!" Drug Screening for Welfare in Florida.

lowing wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Board footer