|
| Thread: No Welfare for Drug Users |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Do you think drug tests for employment at private companies should be illegal?
That depends.
When it comes to criminal activities - and using illegal drugs IS a criminal activity - I don't see why drugs are so different from other crimes.
If a private company can ask a drug test, shouldn't it then be allowed to make checks on any criminal activity? Complete insight in banking accounts and activities? E-mail correspondence? Checks of the flat. Illegal GAMBLING is a crime that is as dangerous as drugs.
And if THAT is allowed - shouldn't a company be allowed to check other things as well? Sexual orientation, for example. Frequency of sexual activities. Night life. TV habits. Whatever.
Even RELEVANT checks are a problem. Sure, surgeons and drugs don't mix well, for example, but here ALL drugs count, even the legal ones. Gambling can ruin everyone, so making drug tests mandatory for policemen is one thing, but a gambling habit may have the same effect, may lead to the same financial problems, may make them targets for extortion, and, and and.
And then there is the family. It's ok, when the cop is no druggie - but that doesn't mean that his children may not dabble with them, and that may lead to the same consequences.
I think, that random checks on drugs are in order, the way it's done in traffic, where it's important that you are DRUG-free (and not ILLEGAL-drug-free).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If a private company can ask a drug test, shouldn't it then be allowed to make checks on any criminal activity?
If you agree to it - yes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Even if welfare can't be used to buy drugs (and that depends on the form of welfare - if it's just money, then it can) it can still cause people to buy more drugs. Suppose you spend $400 on food and $400 on drugs when you're "on your own". Now suppose the government gives you $400 to spend on food. Now you can spend $800 on drugs.
Yes, thanks, Mvass, everyone is waiting on the miracle drug that is not only drug but food and drink as well and clads you, while you are at it.
Oh, and Blizzard, checking your POLICE RECORD is something completely different. It's public knowledge anyway.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think it would be practical, but they should be able to test a person for alcohol levels if they so please, whether it is legal to drink a beer or not.
depends on the situation, if you are driving ok. otherwise like JJ said, they can just check which shows you watch on tv, what you eat, etc... and then decide to grant you wellfare or not.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 06:40 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Obviously that was a simplification, but my main point is that when government gives you money to spend on certain things, you have more money to spend on other goods - drugs among them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 08:27 PM |
|
|
But that is no point.
You get welfare only because you have no other income or no sufficient other income.
If you lie about that, THAT is the decisive point, not the things you spend that money for.
I mean, why not make a lie detector test mandatory for anything?
"Did you ever do something knowing it was illegal?"
Case closed.
Or, say you want to rent a flat. The landlord asks for a drug test. You counter that by asking for one as well.
Strictly speaking, everyone can ask anything, but denying should be no grounds to withhold or cancel something.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 09:18 PM |
|
|
But life doesn't always (and usually doesn't) operate in such polar extremes.
People don't sign off to constantly be hooked up to lie detectors because that would be expensive, highly inconvenient, and not to mention highly inaccurate.
People applying for welfare probably are never going to have their house thoroughly searched because, from an administrative end, conducting such thorough searches would involve more labor and cost than it's worth, and not to mention it's much easier to temporarily relocate some illegal items than it is to cheat or temporarily detox for a drug test. In comparison, a mandatory check-in at a clinic where you piss in a cup or have a sample of blood drawn isn't such a huge deal, and it is easy to verify. Psychological addictions such as gambling, video games, and porno have potential to be a liability to a person's ability to perform their job, but having a means to gauge that isn't so easy. Companies and government agencies have better things to do with their time and money than to open up an entire new department just to go to extreme measures to track their employees/clients habits.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 10:20 PM |
|
|
So what's that supposed to mean? Big brother is watching you, but only if it's not too expensive?
A law is a law, and you can't just steamroller over people's rights because it's EASY to do and leave them others because it would be too expensive to violate them.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 10:25 PM |
|
|
Yes you can. It's completely up to a company/government agency's discrepancy to determine what is worthwhile to include in an application. There's no invisible force that dictates that if they do a check-up on one thing, they have to do a check-up on every minute detail. A lot of things just aren't worth the trouble.
And it's not trampling their rights. They're signing up for something. Their rights would be getting trampled if it was involuntary. If Jessica Alba asks if she can give me a blowjob, and she says that I have to eat a rotten grapefruit first, and I agree to eat the rotten grapefruit, my rights are not being trampled on. If she pins me down and forces a rotten grapefruit down my throat, my rights are being trampled on.
Now, the key difference in this case is that welfare may be necessary for a person to pay their basic living expenses, which would lead to a further debate concerning what should happen next. If they test positive for drugs, would they be required to undergo detox treatments, or should they simply be cut off and then end up in a shelter or who knows where else? Or some other option, etc. It doesn't have to be "You tested positive for heroine, goodbye".
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 10:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes you can. It's completely up to a company/government agency's discrepancy to determine what is worthwhile to include in an application. There's no invisible force that dictates that if they do a check-up on one thing, they have to do a check-up on every minute detail.
Completely beside the point.
First thing is, you are mistaking freedom with extortion, and that becomes obvious when you consider that people depend on welfare.
Second, you are mistaking the necessity to check every detail with the freedom to do so.
In other words, you are mistaking everything that's relevant.
What's the other side, mind you? If you apply for a job, can you demand a drig test first from the one who demands one from you? Sure can, and if you don't get one, you are free to not apply. See the difference?
If you have to make a drug test, can you demand one first from those who made the law, those who demand the test from you, those who do the test and those who analyse it?
If not - WHY not?
Just to show that I understand the point - what they COULD decide, at least that's my opinion, is a random anonymous drug test with all welfare recipients.
That would give them an idea about the percentages there.
Of course they could do the same to everyone else, priests, actors, politicians, millionaires - you get the drift. Random and anonymous.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 12:02 AM |
|
|
@JJ:
Their dependence on welfare is rather circumstantial. The majority of people don't depend on welfare, and people that are on welfare could at some point get a decent job and get off of welfare. You could also say that I supposedly depend on my job's income, which I do, but the catch is that there are other possibilities out there. If I lost my job, I wouldn't need to start digging a hole and building a long wooden box for myself. And either way, whether they need it or not, it doesn't change the fact that they are by definition being a parasite, and if they're going to get money in exchange for nothing, wanting to find out if they're a hardcore crack addict, among other things, is a small issue.
When Greece and Ireland got bailed-out, there were conditions attached. It's common sense to do this because you don't just throw assets out the door and make the receiver (a parasite) have zero accountability. It's the same thing for welfare recipients, only on a more micro level. The end hope is that they eventually stop being a parasite, and that hope is nothing more than wishful thinking if you're going to just give out the money without a single condition, such as "Hey, we would like you to get a stable job at some point, so could you like... you know, maybe stop smoking crack 5 times a day? Thanks."
And yeah, if you were in a silly mood and wanted to demand that the person hiring you get a drug test, you could, otherwise you refuse to offer your services to them, though I don't see it as practical.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 12:18 AM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
If you have to make a drug test, can you demand one first from those who made the law, those who demand the test from you, those who do the test and those who analyse it?
Sure, you can ask them to take a drug test. Of course, they'd probably laugh and not take the request seriously - but you can make drug testing a prerequisite for any of your employers (but if you do, it's unlikely anyone would ever hire you).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 12:38 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 05:03, 09 Jun 2011.
|
@TitaniumAlloy
Quote:
Secondly, the statement that when people get off drugs in order to retain welfare (which, by the way, shows a complete lack of understanding of how drugs work) they will go on to bigger and better things is not always true.
A person is much more likely to be able to get and hold a job if he gets off [edited: welfare ] drugs.
I have had to undergo many drug screenings. When in the military I was subject to drug screening. My work in law enforcement has made me subject to drug screening. Part of my business endeavors involve work for a companies that require drug screening. My last drug test was in the middle of April. I am about to start another project next week where again I will take a drug test before beginning the job and will be subject to random drug tests during the job because I will work there at times with my crew and thus be required to drug test. In fact I've spent all day today making final preparations for the project with my project manager.
Pardon me if I don't cry rivers of tears for welfare recipients having to take a drug test to get free money. I worked my way out of deep poverty by working 3 jobs for 100+ hour weeks. I lived in a ghetto apartment, saved my money and started my own business. If I had been a druggie I would still be in the ghetto instead of a business owner.
Quote:
Elodin, your logic in applying this entirely unrelated topic to degrading Democrats is entirely flawed.
Oh, it is pretty much a liberal/conservative issue. I am an independent conservative, by the way, not a Republican.
@JJ
Quote:
Drug tests are illegal from more than one point of view.
You are simply clueless about the law. I already posted a link to a US government site that says otherwise. And as I mentioned, all military personal, all law enforcement, and many privately employed individuals have to undergo drug screenings.
I asked a question you did not answer earlier.
"How is it fascist to require drug screening for welfare recipients when soldiers, law enforcement, and many privately employed people have to undergo drug screenings?" Please answer the question.
Quote:
Of course they could do the same to everyone else, priests, actors, politicians, millionaires - you get the drift. Random and anonymous.
Those folks don't have their hands out looking for "free" money from the taxpayers.
____________
Revelation
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 03:06 AM |
|
|
I've said my piece already.
Definitely test them, and test all levels of government while you're at it. Also all government contractors.
Consider it the price of recieving tax dollars.
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 03:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course they could do the same to everyone else, priests, actors, politicians, millionaires - you get the drift. Random and anonymous.
Those folks don't have their hands out looking for "free" money from the taxpayers.
You're operating under the assumption that those people all pay tax as they should. Certain religious organisations are tax exempt, Hillsong being an example. Many politicians and millionaires have the ability or the finances to avoid large parts of tax, and for each one of them the amount of tax they would avoid would amount to hundreds of people on welfare. I would also say that Hillsong certainly does have its hand out for "free" money from taxpayers.
Our societies have a certain amount of wealth re-distribution in the form of taxes and welfare. Those with the greatest means support those with least. Philosophically one could say that this is in part due to some of those at the top who didn't get there through their own endeavours, and vice-versa with those at the bottom - some people are born into poverty. The idea however, isn't to simply give people money so they can live without starving, the idea is to empower them to rise from their circumstance. This idea is rarely realised.
Being born into poverty is rough. I work as a teacher for kids with challenging behaviours (juvenile detention, psychological or emotional issues, etc.), and I would say that 99.95% of the kids I work with come from poor families. Poverty has an amazingly awful effect on people, it really does make them worse people. I was reading a study the other day about the psychological effects of poverty and it wasn't pretty, it dis-enfranchises, demoralises and depresses. Yes, sometimes people turn to drugs to escape from the harsh reality of the world they live in.
Junkie drug users should be supported so they can get out of the situation they're in. If someone is on welfare and they're known to have had serious issues with drugs they should attend mandatory counseling and meetings, many of these support services are free within communities and paid for by charity, philanthropy and yes some tax. Most people with adequate support and guidance can escape their plight, some people are unaware of these services or do not receive them and sadly become stuck in it. It is our duty as human beings to continue to show them mercy and the opportunity to turn around and redeem themselves. I'm no Christian, but that concept for me - that people can change - is just part of being a decent person. It might be that when you work with these kinds of people you get to see their common humanity.
Recreational drug users are a difficult kettle of fish. It's unwise but often no worse than alcohol. The amount of damage that alcohol does is really quite shocking and far more pervasive than most drugs. That being said, I love drinking! Should I be excluded from a job because I drink on the weekends?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 04:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@TitaniumAlloy
Quote:
Secondly, the statement that when people get off drugs in order to retain welfare (which, by the way, shows a complete lack of understanding of how drugs work) they will go on to bigger and better things is not always true.
A person is much more likely to be able to get and hold a job if he gets off welfare.
I have had to undergo many drug screenings. When in the military I was subject to drug screening. My work in law enforcement has made me subject to drug screening. Part of my business endeavors involve work for a companies that require drug screening. My last drug test was in the middle of April. I am about to start another project next week where again I will take a drug test before beginning the job and will be subject to random drug tests during the job because I will work there at times with my crew and thus be required to drug test. In fact I've spent all day today making final preparations for the project with my project manager.
Pardon me if I don't cry rivers of tears for welfare recipients having to take a drug test to get free money. I worked my way out of deep poverty by working 3 jobs for 100+ hour weeks. I lived in a ghetto apartment, saved my money and started my own business. If I had been a druggie I would still be in the ghetto instead of a business owner.
Stop, read your first sentence (I've bolded it for you) and then go back and re-read what you've quoted from me (I left it in for your convenience). If that doesn't ring alarm bells that you've drastically misunderstood what I said, then I'm out.
Of course a person who is not on welfare is more likely to have a job, given welfare is available that is a circular definition.
Quote:
Quote:
Elodin, your logic in applying this entirely unrelated topic to degrading Democrats is entirely flawed.
Oh, it is pretty much a liberal/conservative issue. I am an independent conservative, by the way, not a Republican.
What? For a start, I never mentioned, asked nor cared what your political standpoint is.
The point that I was trying to make was that your extrapolation of this interesting debate to making inferences about long term changes in people's views on the two party system is not only irrelevant, but downright inane.
I think that to reduce an issue such as this as being either liberal/conservative is to dumb it down to a point where it is no longer worth discussing. It is more complex than that, so degrading democrats contributes nothing and is more of an attempt to derail this topic before you've even started it.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 04:26 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 04:30, 09 Jun 2011.
|
what makes you think that work is so useful and valuable, and that junkies are a bigger weigh on the planet than workers?
by the way, junkies actually contribute to the system by consumming drugs, since they inject money into it to get their dose. but without money to spend, they would be useless.
though, it might very well make criminal activities worse than they are, and I think someone said that illegal sale of drugs generates more money than would legal sale.
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 04:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
what makes you think that work is so useful and valuable, and that junkies are a bigger weigh on the planet than workers?
by the way, junkies actually contribute to the system by consumming drugs, since they inject money into it to get their dose. but without money to spend, they would be useless.
though, it might very well make criminal activities worse than they are, and I think someone said that illegal sale of drugs generates more money than would legal sale.
Yep, everyone loves junkies for the considerate contributers they are to our society and our planet.
They don't contribute to the system by consuming drugs, because drug money is not taxed. As an anti-prohibitionist/pro-control(ist?) think we should legalise drugs so that we can tax drugs, and least then those people on welfare who really do have no intention of being anything other than a junkie (mostly because of the drug, not because they don't want to) actually support the system that supports them. Additionally, we would be able to better understand drug abuse by the collection of data at pharmacies/drug stores. You'd also be able to able to control doses and quality, as well as supplying alternatives that have addiction reducing qualities, like methadone.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 05:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
@TitaniumAlloy
A person is much more likely to be able to get and hold a job if he gets off welfare.
Ah, I did not type what I meant to type. What I meant to type was:
Quote:
A person is much more likely to be able to get and hold a job if he gets off drugs.
And like I said, "If I had been a druggie I would still be in the ghetto instead of a business owner."
Quote:
What? For a start, I never mentioned, asked nor cared what your political standpoint is.
The point that I was trying to make was that your extrapolation of this interesting debate to making inferences about long term changes in people's views on the two party system is not only irrelevant, but downright inane.
I think that to reduce an issue such as this as being either liberal/conservative is to dumb it down to a point where it is no longer worth discussing. It is more complex than that, so degrading democrats contributes nothing and is more of an attempt to derail this topic before you've even started it.
The democrat party is the party of welfare and class warfare. It paints "the rich" as evil, selfish, greedy people who oppress others. It is the party that creates a culture of dependance on the government and an "entitlement" mentality. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the government to take money from one person for the purpose of giving it to someone else "who doesn't have enough money." Indeed, the founding fathers specifically said the Constitution does not authorize such a thing.
Quote:
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
A wise and frugal government
shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
-James Madison
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
-James Madison
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 05:43 AM |
|
|
TheBaron:
Quote:
Poverty has an amazingly awful effect on people, it really does make them worse people.
Out of curiosity, how do you know cause and effect aren't the other way around? Maybe it's not poverty that makes people "worse", but that "worse" people tend to become and stay poor. One minor example that points to something like this is lottery winners - not infrequently, they spend all their winnings quickly and end up in more debt than they started out with. And it's well-known that drug dealers on the street are barely paid anything, so drug-dealing isn't an effective personal antipoverty strategy. Not to say that you're wrong - but both effects may be at play here.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
