"Along with the other perfectly valid reasons for opposing drug testing for welfare and unemployment, I take a conservative approach and favor the complete and total legalization of drugs, all of them. Therefore drug testing would be superfluous. No government laws against drugs and no government laws requiring drug testing. Less government, see?"


I like this one, might as well just get rid of unemployment and welfare too. It's amazing that our grandparents ever survived without it.

So, if you are opposed to drug tests, do you have anything you would try to get chronically unemployed drug users off of unemployment? Or, are you ok with them remaining on unemployment?

It seems that if you don't want to do anything (something - I don't care if it's a drug test) about the abuse, then you're OK with letting it continue.

I'm also curious about the claim that these drug tests would be unconstitutional. Sure it would be unconstitutional to just show up at a citizen's house and demand a drug test. But would it be unconstitutional to make it a condition of receiving gov't funds?

Interesting topic.

By the way, I kind of like Salmo's take.

I love it when stupid people make stupid assumptions. Ever met me Masrsha? Are you sure I'm white?

Dan-O,

As Aunty M mentioned, unemployment benefits are not indefinite. See, I don't care if someone uses drugs or is a drug addict. That's their personal choice and none of my business. If a drug user does his or her job, why should I care that they use drugs? However, if a person cannot do their job, whether because of drug use or some other reason, fire them. Pretty simple. People fired for cause aren't supposed to qualify for unemployment benefits, but I understand that they nonetheless often do. But that's a different problem that should be solved in and of itself, and not confused with "giving unemployment benefits to drug users."

As further evidence of American stupidity, I submit that altogether too many people have this bass ackwards idea that we can change drug use patterns in society by passing more laws. But the track record is absolutely clear that it makes no difference and has only succeeded in adding to government spending by over $105,000,000,000 per year in 1995 dollars. Flat out total legalization would have little effect on drug use in the U.S., except that heroin use most likely would decline significantly, and pot use might, maybe, possibly, potentially, increase slightly. Most people's drug use decisions are not base on laws about drug use. Believing otherwise is delusional at best, or misinformed, or stupid in many cases.

If you want people off welfare, support policies that make welfare recipients better off by getting off welfare.

If you want people off unemployment, support policies that add more jobs to the economic stream.

Negative incentives like drug testing for welfare and unemployment are excellent examples of shallow, nearly dimwitted, thinking, and far more likely than not are doomed to failure should they be used. There's gobs of social data showing what works and doesn't work when dealing with people, but the American aversion to science-based decision making pretty much assures a continuation of ineffectual policy level decision making.

Sg

AM+SG = +1000 BD how high do negative number go?

Marsha are you stoned or just stupid? Your incredibly dumb comparison is like saying if you're against murder you hate minorities because more minorities are in prison for murder than white people.

In your example of the family on welfare, why is a man who can't afford to feed his family buying a fishing license and dope? He has money for a fishing license, gas to go fishing and drugs, but can't afford food??? WTF are you doing defending decision making that is that poor? Why should taxpayers subsidize stupid decision making when they don't have to? What are this mans children going through at school, being made fun of for being on welfare so dad has money to buy drugs? If pot is harmless and not addictive as many users say, why can't he stop as to not jeopardize his families stability? Why do so many of you liberals defend his selfishness? Even if his drug habit is only $50-100 a month, that could buy a lot of groceries, car insurance for a month, heating bill for a month, electric bill, new shoes or jackets for his children etc.

There have to be consequences for poor decision making. When your kid asks you to borrow some money for car insurance, but then blows it while bowling or partying with friends do you give them more money, or teach them a lesson by making them ride the bus until they earn enough money to pay the car insurance?

If your brother bought meth with his house payment money, then asks you to loan him money to make his house payment, is it wrong to put a condition on the loan of not buying drugs with it? Of course not. Nobody is proposing the end of the welfare programs as there are people who do truly need it, but it is not unfair to ask them to stay drug free. Food stamp programs won't let you spend the money on beer, McDonalds, cigarettes or energy drinks. It's the same line of thinking.

I know people with CDL's that have lost there license and jobs over a off work DUII, guess someone on welfare shoudn't be held accountable..

Curious here....how do you drugs are OK folks feel about the over-serving law? You know, where the bar is responsible for what the drunk does. To me that says that the general concensus is that when someone is under the influence, they are no longer able to make rational decisions.....hence the bar is responsible.
Do you also feel that the supplier of drugs should be held responsible for one's use?

Chuck last time I looked drugs are still an illegal activity, these people are asking for public assitance from many law abiding citizens that really don't like working and paying taxes to support this. Point is my aquantance took a job where it clearly stated that if he got a DUII or Drug conviction he would be terminated and he was. He did get a job back with the same company because he was a good worker and he was not driving company trucks at the time, but it's at a lesser pay scale and he's not driving just a yard man.

Hope it doesn't get to the point that Bob install's a blow & go before logging on....

Mf

"Hope it doesn't get to the point that Bob install's a blow & go before logging on.... "



What and shut the whole board down..

Slab,

A socially responsible bar tender doesn't serve a customer who is drunk. It's bad business in the long run IMO. I think it's wrong to hold bar tenders financially or criminally responsible however, for serving a drunk. The bar tender can't always know how much a person has had to drink; i.e., the customer could have already had a few drinks before arriving at this bar, and he may appear to hold his liquor pretty well. The drinker is the one who makes the choice to drink and should be held responsible for whatever occurs as a result of that.

In most cases I wouldn't hold a drug pusher responsible for the actions of one of his customers. I do make an exception for heroin pushers/dealers, however. Less you think me inconsistent, let me explain. Most people come to heroin use only partly of their own free will. The general pattern is that a heroin pusher who is an addict befriends other people looking for a good time, and provides an assortment of booze and drugs for a few fun weekends. I'm not sure if it's deceit or subterfuge, but then they lace pot, meth, or some other drug with a bit of heroin without the newbie being aware. Once the newly initiated get to liking the combo drug they are introduced to straight injectible heroin. I should be a harsh jerk and say that the newebie should turn and run at this point, but most don't because they were headed down a loser road already. So they don't, figuring at this point that they can handle a shot or two of heroin, and besides, it's so much fun. The problem is that the friendly-so-far pusher who has been providing everything for free becomes not-so-friendly. Next time they get together, the pusher says, ahah, that's gonna' cost $100, knowing that he's already deceived the newbie into being a junkie. Pushers do this because lying and deceit is the surest way for them to recruit new junkies who will need them to provide them their heroin. This is how the pusher/junkie supports his own habit, by recruiting new users and destroying their lives such that they embezzle from work, lose their jobs, and begin stealing and prostitution to get their next fix. So I have a little bit of sympathy for someone who becomes a heroin junkie via this route. Conversely, I'd put the hit on any and every pusher who recruits this way.

So except for the above noted exception, I wouldn't hold drug suppliers responsible for customers who of their own free will choose to buy drugs. While other drugs like crack cocaine and meth are extremely addictive, as far as I know, only heroin is the equivalent of a death sentence to a user (not that it has to be; if heroin were totally legal, a user could get a phara. grade dose for about $1).

There are effective ways to deal with and treat drug issues. Witholding welfare and unemployment are not among those methods.

Sg

I'm sure Oregons Attorney Generals Office would need to weigh in before this could ever become law. But it's already legal for the CG to drug test before issuing a license and they are a goverment agency.

Just because someone is on food stamps or public assistance doesn't mean they do illegal drugs.

Our nation is coming to a point where they are going to put a tag in everybody and put a video camera in every bedroom. And yes a blow and go in every vehicle.

So where do you live and work Bait Humper? How do we know you are not doing anything illegal? We want to see your bank statements and search your house. Post your last five tax returns here and your last 4 paychecks too. We will schedule you for a lie detector test. We will also make you pee in a cup and get hair samples from you. If you don't submit to the PP investigation service then you have something to hide.

Good point. There is a point, and I think lately the far-right has begun crossing it, that Libertarianism begins to start to smack more of just plain Sociopathy than any real political ethos.

You see it more and more lately especially since fvcktards like Glenn Beck and The Teabaggers crawled out of the woodwork and were given soapboxes courtesy of the Pharma and Insurance industries.

One of the cool things about America used to be Civic Pride, in which as tax paying citizens, we enjoyed seeing our money go into our communities in the for of roads, bridges, and architectually pleasing public works. No one ever said anything like "I dont use the town park, so I ain't gonna pay fer it! Charge user fees!" Or "I hate gubmit so I think instead of courts we should just shoot people."

I think it's a tragic trend and if I had to put my finger on any root cause, I'd say it began with desegregation.

Owned.

I'd gladly pee in a cup, and do twice a year at work. No, not everyone on welfare is on drugs, I never made that case. The case I made is why should the general public, many who are barely making it, pay to support drug addicts?
Do I do illegal things? Of course I do. I drive too fast, I burn farm diesel in my truck, and I sell a few Christmas trees and don't report them. The difference is that I don't ask the public to support me or my "illegal habits". That's all the difference in the world. To think speeding is akin to asking the public to support a meth addict is just plain silly.

bait dumpster is nothing more than a common thief the way he burns farm diesel in his truck like that.

He's no different than the guy who sticks up a 7-11.

Really? So child molestation, murder, and rape are the same as smoking pot, jay walking and speeding? Did someone say borderline retarded????

What someone does in their own home is their own business within reason, I agree. You seem to choose to ignore that fact that asking the public to support someones drug using ass is the difference. As I've said before, it's not just the casual pot smoker, it's the meth addict who screws with your truck at the boat ramp. Either way, we shouldn't have to support them while they continue to make bad decisions.

Hey Marsha,

I won't go so far as to say that I have a functional knowledge of the 4th amendment, but doesn't unreasonable search and seizure apply to the gov't coming looking for you? In this case, it's the person coming to the gov't looking for $$. I guess I just don't see the 4th amendment violation.

I don't think the gov't has any business in my business......... unless I've got my hand out. I may even have my hand out for perfectly valid reasons, but I still have my hand out. In that case, I don't think the gov't should just give me money because I want it. I think they have some sort of fiduciary responsibility. And, no, I'm not sure a drug test is the right way to go, but isn't there some culpability for making sure their spending my tax dollars wisely (he asks as naively as possible).
If not a drug test, is there any test, or should they just be given money because they asked?

I guess I'd pee in a bottle without hesitation if I were asking for money, but then I do worse than that for money now. :-)

v/r..... even on the Dark Side,

Dan