Nicely done.

There's a difference between someone who is doing a job, and someone who is being a leech. If they want welfare, damn straight we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs.

I'm not against testing legislators, but acting like it's the same thing is farking ridiculous. They're doing a job and earning their money. People who want free money should have to show they aren't wasting it on unnecessary shiat.

/pro-legalization of all drugs
//ruining your life should be your own damn business
///but it should be done with your own damn money.

JanusofZeal: There's a difference between someone who is doing a job, and someone who is being a leech. If they want welfare, damn straight we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs.

you know what is a cheaper and more effectively way of ensuring it isn't going to drugs? DON'T GIVE THEM CASH. give them vouchers for things that are good.

hahahahahahahaha

HA! Remember when Florida did this?

Hilarious results (new window)

Kazan: JanusofZeal: There's a difference between someone who is doing a job, and someone who is being a leech. If they want welfare, damn straight we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs.

you know what is a cheaper and more effectively way of ensuring it isn't going to drugs? DON'T GIVE THEM CASH. give them vouchers for things that are good.

This still offers them the freedom of spending their own extra cash on the drugs, and relying on the vouchers for the essentials. The money they earn should be going towards getting off the damn vouchers, not drugs. Until they're off the vouchers, stamps, or cash, they shouldn't be spending any money on drugs.

It isn't just about if THAT money is going to drugs. It's about if they're using money for drugs, instead of to get off the government (aka our) dime.

JanusofZeal: Kazan: JanusofZeal: There's a difference between someone who is doing a job, and someone who is being a leech. If they want welfare, damn straight we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs.

you know what is a cheaper and more effectively way of ensuring it isn't going to drugs? DON'T GIVE THEM CASH. give them vouchers for things that are good.

This still offers them the freedom of spending their own extra cash on the drugs, and relying on the vouchers for the essentials. The money they earn should be going towards getting off the damn vouchers, not drugs. Until they're off the vouchers, stamps, or cash, they shouldn't be spending any money on drugs.

It isn't just about if THAT money is going to drugs. It's about if they're using money for drugs, instead of to get off the government (aka our) dime.

drugs really isn't a significant problem with people on wellfare.. too many kids is. that and the fact that you get off of your benefits for working, but not making enough money to live on. so you're farked coming or going.

JanusofZeal: and someone who is being a leech. If they want welfare

OOC, are you calling all welfare recipients leeches?

JanusofZeal: If they want welfare, damn straight we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs.

You do know they tried this already right? See the thing is most of those "leeches" you are talking about are under the age of 10. So yeah - it would suck if a 5 yr old was doing heroin but I don't think removing their food and shelter is going to help them kick.

If you test for pot you need to test for alcohol. No difference in sitting around stoned all day being a bum then sitting around drunk all day being a bum.

I seriously don't understand how this drug testing for welfare idea is still around. It's an incredibly transparent piece of propaganda designed to portray certain people receiving certain financial aid (meaning the poor getting food stamps and welfare, not the rich getting bailouts and subsidies) as drug users or other undesirables. It has absolutely no basis in reality and was proposed and promoted purely to dehumanize or demonize a whole class of people. People that, by definition, need our help. The whole thing disgusts me.

Kazan: drugs really isn't a significant problem with people on wellfare.. too many kids is. that and the fact that you get off of your benefits for working, but not making enough money to live on. so you're farked coming or going.

You should ask me how I feel about welfare and children (hint: don't. It will drive this thread offtopic in a matter of 3 posts.) Yes, there are parts of the system that definitely need work, and that borderline is one of them.

snuff3r: JanusofZeal: and someone who is being a leech. If they want welfare

OOC, are you calling all welfare recipients leeches?

No. Also, out of character? Not sure what OOC means there.

quickdraw: JanusofZeal: If they want welfare, damn straight we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs.

You do know they tried this already right? See the thing is most of those "leeches" you are talking about are under the age of 10. So yeah - it would suck if a 5 yr old was doing heroin but I don't think removing their food and shelter is going to help them kick.

See my response to Kazan. Also, obviously children wouldn't need to be tested. Course if their parents are doin heroin instead of taking care of the kids, hello CPS.

JanusofZeal: There's a difference between someone who is doing a job, and someone who is being a leech. If they want welfare, damn straight we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs.

I'm not against testing legislators, but acting like it's the same thing is farking ridiculous. They're doing a job and earning their money. People who want free money should have to show they aren't wasting it on unnecessary shiat.

/pro-legalization of all drugs
//ruining your life should be your own damn business
///but it should be done with your own damn money.

I don't know where you work, but when's the last time you started a job that did NOT require a drug test?

It's high time lawmakers put up or shut up.

TheOmni: I seriously don't understand how this drug testing for welfare idea is still around. It's an incredibly transparent piece of propaganda designed to portray certain people receiving certain financial aid (meaning the poor getting food stamps and welfare, not the rich getting bailouts and subsidies) as drug users or other undesirables. It has absolutely no basis in reality and was proposed and promoted purely to dehumanize or demonize a whole class of people. People that, by definition, need our help. The whole thing disgusts me.

If it's not going to affect any of them, what's the big farkin deal? You think we can't be against welfare people on druggies AND against bail outs? They aren't mutually farkin exclusive. God forbid anyone want to be sure their tax dollars going to (recreational) drugs.

Ambivalence: JanusofZeal: There's a difference between someone who is doing a job, and someone who is being a leech. If they want welfare, damn straight we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs.

I'm not against testing legislators, but acting like it's the same thing is farking ridiculous. They're doing a job and earning their money. People who want free money should have to show they aren't wasting it on unnecessary shiat.

/pro-legalization of all drugs
//ruining your life should be your own damn business
///but it should be done with your own damn money.

I don't know where you work, but when's the last time you started a job that did NOT require a drug test?

It's high time lawmakers put up or shut up.

When I started my current job. I only had to get drug tested when I worked at a refinery (IT, college summer job.)

Corvus: So kids should starve because their mother is on drugs? Great plan!

its what Jesus would have wanted.

JanusofZeal: There's a difference between someone who is doing a job, and someone who is being a leech. If they want welfare, damn straight we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs.

I'm not against testing legislators, but acting like it's the same thing is farking ridiculous. They're doing a job and earning their money. People who want free money should have to show they aren't wasting it on unnecessary shiat.

/pro-legalization of all drugs
//ruining your life should be your own damn business
///but it should be done with your own damn money.

Actually, you've got it almost completely backwards. The most typical drug-testing scenario is that of a worker (or prospective worker) on the (admittedly often mistaken) notion that drug use is indicative of what kind of employee they might be (then there's sports, but that's a somewhat different issue). So arguably the best-justified instance of drug-testing is precisely that of a person working a job.

With a person receiving welfare, on the other hand, there simply is no good reason for drug-testing. Saying "we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs" makes about as much sense as saying "we should be making sure the money isn't going to movies or video games".

Republicans: the party of small government!


I think it's time for some politicians to admit that they have a urine fetish.

NTTAWWT, of course. But c'mon, that's what Craigslist is for. Keep it on the floor of your house and off the floor of the House, man.

Biological Ali: Actually, you've got it almost completely backwards. The most typical drug-testing scenario is that of a worker (or prospective worker) on the (admittedly often mistaken) notion that drug use is indicative of what kind of employee they might be (then there's sports, but that's a somewhat different issue). So arguably the best-justified instance of drug-testing is precisely that of a person working a job.

With a person receiving welfare, on the other hand, there simply is no good reason for drug-testing. Saying "we should be making sure the money isn't going to drugs" makes about as much sense as saying "we should be making sure the money isn't going to movies or video games".

I do not have it at all backwards. The fact that companies have it backwards about drug testing doesn't mean I do. No, I don't think companies should drug test unless it has some sort of effect or relevance on the actual job. The fact that companies do that is NOT an argument against my point. The fact that companies drug test does not mean that's the best thing to be using drug tests for. That's only "best-justified" if you think "the way things are is how they should be" is the only form of justification. If you do feel that's the case, let me know so I can put you on ignore now.

It does make perfect sense to say "lets make sure they aren't wasting the tax dollars." And I'd say that drug use is a bit more destructive than playing video games. For the record, no I don't think tax dollars should be spent on those things either. Are you really claiming that video games are the same as heroin? Really?

Weaver95: Corvus: So kids should starve because their mother is on drugs? Great plan!

its what Jesus would have wanted.

Good to see why I have Corvus on ignore. He made it on before I started linking the threads that earned them the slot, so I wasn't sure.

Yes, because obviously if their mother is a druggie the ONLY option to give the kids food and support they need is to give mommy money.

JanusofZeal: TheOmni: I seriously don't understand how this drug testing for welfare idea is still around. It's an incredibly transparent piece of propaganda designed to portray certain people receiving certain financial aid (meaning the poor getting food stamps and welfare, not the rich getting bailouts and subsidies) as drug users or other undesirables. It has absolutely no basis in reality and was proposed and promoted purely to dehumanize or demonize a whole class of people. People that, by definition, need our help. The whole thing disgusts me.

If it's not going to affect any of them, what's the big farkin deal? You think we can't be against welfare people on druggies AND against bail outs? They aren't mutually farkin exclusive. God forbid anyone want to be sure their tax dollars going to (recreational) drugs.

I'm having trouble parsing this. When you say "If it's not going to affect any of them, what's the big farkin deal?" who is "them"? Because if you're referring to welfare recipients who don't use drugs, it is going to affect them because the whole concept of drug testing for welfare is a propaganda piece to portray them as drug users without any actual evidence. And while supporting drug testing for welfare and being opposed to bail outs are not, technically, mutually exclusive I don't really see a lot of overlap between the two groups.

Mad Tea Party: Guilty until proven innocent FTW! You want your SS payment, Grandma? Then go pee in this cup for me.

Asking for government handouts is TOTALLY the same thing as a criminal trial! Don't want to piss in a cup? Don't ask for free money. Problem solved.

For the record,my stance on this is for welfare, not for Social Security for old people. It's for people who should be paying their own way.

InfidelSavant: Hey, let's not allow people on welfare to do anything else we don't like. They should be banned from amusement parks, not allowed to purchase porn, probably shouldn't be on the internet except for job search websites, etc.

Hey, let's not allow people who cannot take care of themselves to use our money for shiat they don't need. No. I don't think money that I worked for should be taken out of my check so someone can go to an amusement park, when it could be going towards ME going to an amusement park. You want to go to an amusement park? Great! Get off of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY and pay your own farking way. Cable TV and porn aren't a basic human right.