kiwimoogle84: Salt Lick Steady: kiwimoogle84: I see no problem with random drug testing

The FOURTH FREAKING AMENDMENT. Jesus. Just stop.

They can refuse, you know. It's not like anyone would force them. Therefore their 4th amendment rights remain upheld. If I refused drug testing for my job, I wouldn't have a job. How is this not similar?

Conditioning state action on voluntarily submitting to what would otherwise be an unconstitutional state action makes the action unconstitutional. But hey, how would I know?

You know what you could do, dear? You could read why there's a preliminary injunction on Florida's law. But that'd be hard work, wouldn't it?

kiwimoogle84: If pot were legalized, it wouldn't be a dirty test if you're positive.

And if my aunt were my uncle, you'd still be a dumbass.

ThrobblefootSpectre: jst3p: To be fair, she is being repeatedly harassed and blatantly told to shut up because she keeps saying really stupid things.

As opposed to all the really intelligent insults and bullying from her detractors. Lol.

There are plenty of intelligent arguments made that invalidate her "opinions". There are also some insults and bullying comments. The former don't negate the latter.

nunpunter: Yes lets eliminate all social programs. I don't know about you, but having a giant increase in people struggling to eat will just make my daily commute to work more exciting. Especially people with a proven history of making poor life decisions. I need more of a mad-max thing going on in the AM.

This is what most teatards want. They're petty malicious people who enjoy watching others suffering and being humiliated because it validates their moral superiority.

jst3p: ThrobblefootSpectre: jst3p: To be fair, she is being repeatedly harassed and blatantly told to shut up because she keeps saying really stupid things.

As opposed to all the really intelligent insults and bullying from her detractors. Lol.

There are plenty of intelligent arguments made that invalidate her "opinions". There are also some insults and bullying comments. The former latter don't negate the latter former.

You knew what I meant.

kiwimoogle84: Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: GnomePaladin: kiwimoogle84: Headso: kiwimoogle84: I'm ok with anyone applying who needs help. It's the people who live on it without trying I have issue with.

What does pot testing even have to do with that?

Actually that's the funny part. I think weed should be legal. I don't think that should disqualify you. But generally a lot of potheads I know are lazy and don't want to do much besides sit on the couch. At least that's my experience. There are exceptions I'm certain.

My blanket thought process is you have to at least try to better yourself if you are able. If you're too broke to pay your bills, you're too broke to afford drugs. That's just my OPINION. My opinion is my opinion.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but you should at least consider its validity from time to time when presented with facts contrary to your current beliefs or a particularly convincing argument. The issue we're discussing here is much more broad than your last paragraph implies.

I know it is and that's what makes it hard. There's a lot of gray area and individual circumstances. Every case is different. I'm just trying to say "don't abuse shiat, mmmkay?"

Do you know a lot of addicts have poor coping mechanisms?

Do you know that the majority of female offenders serving time in prison for drug offenses indicate they were sexually abused?

Do you know that marijuana is an accepted treatment to a variety of ailments and that even those without jobs may experience those ailments?

I'll say it again. I don't have a problem with pot, like those who have 215 cards for medical marijuana and I think it should be legalized. Pot isn't my problem for the most part.

You're focusing on pot when it was only a small fraction of my argument. . .

Ok.

As far as addicts, I know there are programs to detox them. That would be a more effective use of money in my opinion.

Also, I don't think you should be jailed for drug offenses if you're not A, trafficking, B, a repeat offender, or C, willing to attend rehab. It is a shame that there is a lot of sexual abuse but many victims of sexual abuse, through counseling and such, don't turn to drugs as a coping mechanism. That exacerbates the problem. Dig it out, don't bury it. Pain sucks, especially that kind of trauma, but if it's dealt with properly a person can resume a normal life.

So, then we obviously agree that drug testing welfare recipients is a terrible idea.

That was simple enough.

Santa's Knee: Bontesla: bacncsu: Drug testing Welfare recipeints will NEVER be a cost effective solution. Instead people on welfare should be required to do 10-20 hours of community service or forfeit half of their welfare check. That way people who really need it, will work for it and help the community at the same time, who foots the bill in the first place! EVERYBODY wins.

You do realize that most people using welfare have previously paid taxes and will eventually pay taxes again, right? They're not living on your dime. They paid into the safety net so that it would be there for them when they need it.

The generational recipient beneficiaries of the District of Columbia beg to differ...

Citation needed

Also, people's enthusiastic embrace of drug testing in general is really heartening. I wonder how many of these same people biatch about the TSA at the airport because of how "invasive" it is?

I'm sure the Florida governor's link to a company that sells drug testing has nothing whatsoever to do with this law, that is just a giant coincidence.

Kinda like all the other bullshiat government policies ever enacted that benefited a tiny minority of people at the expense of everybody else.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ThrobblefootSpectre: demaL-demaL-yeH: This is for TANF - money that is supposed to help families stay together and alive, you know, subsistence-level support. In essence, you're telling poor, desperate people to drop dead.

That puts you in sociopath territory.

/STFU.
//Seriously, STFU.


The people paying the taxes are barely putting food on the table. You want to take food from their children mouths to support drug user's drug habits.

That puts you in sociopath territory.

People that are barely putting food on the table probably aren't paying taxes that fund welfare programs.

Obviously not at the same time they're collecting. However, statistically speaking, they will be paying into those programs at one point.

kiwimoogle84: Salt Lick Steady: kiwimoogle84: If pot were legalized, it wouldn't be a dirty test if you're positive.

And if my aunt were my uncle, you'd still be a dumbass.

That's not nice. Please use your grown up words.

Sweetheart, if pot were legal, they wouldn't be testing for it in the first place.

kiwimoogle84: Is it unconstitutional for your employer to drug test you then?

And I'd be happy to educate myself further on these policies. Link me. I'll read it.

No, you see honey, the federal Bill of Rights only applies to state action; it does not apply to private action. You'd know that if you knew the first thing about the constitution, sweetheart. Oh, and is your google broken? Do you want me to fix that for you?

/nice enough for your delicate sensibilities?

kiwimoogle84: Smelly Pirate Hooker: kiwimoogle84:

Saw this through referenced comment. My god. Had you considered that my job didn't offer health insurance? You discounted the widowing. Yes, I chose this. Clearly. Oh, and a man beating a woman he's been dating for a year is ok too.

And rap master, my this only got escalated to prove a point. I understand hardship and still never took handouts. Don't want pity. Really I only wanted that guy to just acquiesce that I might have some perspective on the matter.

The problem is, you seem to be saying, "Because I had some tough times, nobody else should get any help, either." Do you not see how callous that is? Almost everybody's had problems. Not everybody thinks that because they got screwed, everybody else should get screwed, too. It's the same kind of meanspirited shiat the Republicans are pimping. And apparently it's working. No better way to deflect the attention of the stupid masses from the people who are really farking them over than to focus on the small percentage of welfare "cheats." Because those welfare-collecting junkies are the cause of all our country's problems.

I want people who truly need help to get it. It's those who take advantage I have issues with.

And I happen to think you've done things I consider abuse while you were seeking financial assistance. Do you understand that?

I think this will pay off in the long run. It's not fair that I have to pass a drug test for a job, but others can sit around and get high off of tax dollars. These tests should be administered in the same fashion as probation. Someone should be in the room to prevent any test tampering. And if they're caught messing with the testing, they should be arrested immediately. With no bail, seeing that money used to bail them out would be more taxpayer money anyway. I'm tired of supporting others who decide to have babies instead of getting a job. Especially when my husband and I both work full time and I can't even afford a doctor visit. These people need to have their funds limited, if not taken away completely. Our government is too broke to keep supporting those that don't help themselves. Where's the government assistance for the working poor? Like myself. Oh yeah, that's right. I don't have six kids under the age of ten. It's a shame that welfare has come to this. Welfare was intended to help out citizens who are out of work to get back on their feet. Not to be used as a lifetime income. Grrrr...

/end rant

Hmmm, for some spurious and unrelated reason I got curious about the ages of posters in this thread.

US Welfare reform was 16 years ago and implemented the time limits that have been cited several times.

Ronald Reagan speaks about a fictionalized "welfare queen" around 35 years ago.

I grew up right in between those points and saw what I saw and it kinda makes sense to me how I feel on the issue.

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Also, people's enthusiastic embrace of drug testing in general is really heartening. I wonder how many of these same people biatch about the TSA at the airport because of how "invasive" it is?

Yes but it does help make themselves feel superior to those who do need welfare because obviously everyone on Welfare is a cheat and a drug junkie.

Nutsac_Jim: jabelar: Anyway, anyone who thinks that denying a social assistance to someone who is already proven to be incapable of good life decisions is impractical and un-Christian/inhuman.

Nobody is talking about denying them social assistance.

If you want to take your own money and start up a fund that will give out money to drug addicts, go right ahead and do it.

Just wait until you read the thread. It has been suggested.

Mrtraveler01: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Also, people's enthusiastic embrace of drug testing in general is really heartening. I wonder how many of these same people biatch about the TSA at the airport because of how "invasive" it is?

Yes but it does help make themselves feel superior to those who do need welfare because obviously everyone on Welfare is a cheat and a drug junkie.

Clearly they are better, they got out of poverty without any help at all*.



* excluding living with family, living with a member of the opposite sex who paid the bills, and Federally subsidized student loans.

kiwimoogle84: A student loan is NOT financial assistance.

To those defending her because she is being attacked and bullied, this is what stupid looks like.

DownDaRiver: Smelly Pirate Hooker: A politician's idea turned out to be counterproductive? What a shock.

On the contrary. It was a very producyive idea.

Come election time a legislator can site their voting record as taking a stance agianst lazy drug abusing welfare scum.

Old peaple eat that shiat up. And they have the time to go vote.

You sound like someone that likes to make excuses. It's called an absentee ballot. Look into it.

Never mind her is a link for your state. You excuse making, lazy bastad.

/Vote!
/no excuses

kiwimoogle84: I THINK

I'd argue the evidence so far suggests otherwise. Less than 3% of people were using drugs. What part of that makes you think the odds are going to work out better if you randomize it? Or are you just really, REALLY bad at probability?

You keep acting like your opinion can't be wrong when we have actual numbers. You're wrong. The odds on random checks paying off are so long that you'd have to be some sort of super moron to try it now that we know the real numbers because other super morons did something even dumber first. If you test more often than about 1 in 45 people you're almost guaranteed to lose money on the plan, but at 1 in 45, your odds of catching any individual druggy are not good and they rapidly worsen the less frequently you test.

You're just wrong. There's no way around it. You're wrong and the numbers are right there to prove it and yet you persist in being wrong and pretending otherwise by calling your wrongness an "opinion". I don't know where the stupid notion that an opinion can't be wrong came from, but it can be wrong, yours is wrong, and it's not unfair to think less of your intellectual capacity since you keep pushing it anyway.

TheSilverKey: Hmmm, for some spurious and unrelated reason I got curious about the ages of posters in this thread.

US Welfare reform was 16 years ago and implemented the time limits that have been cited several times.

Ronald Reagan speaks about a fictionalized "welfare queen" around 35 years ago.

I grew up right in between those points and saw what I saw and it kinda makes sense to me how I feel on the issue.

I'm 27.

I do think some posters have made comments dating themselves.

Bontesla: I do think some posters have made comments dating themselves.

I dated myself one time. I got lucky but then I regretted it in the morning and cried rape.

kiwimoogle84: In the meantime, would you please just agree that I am entitled to my opinion whether you think it's wrong or not?

Yes, you're 'entitled' to have an opinion. You're not entitled to spew it or to bring it into an argument involving facts without being ridiculed, however.

And fer christsake, just google 'Florida welfare preliminary injunction' and *poof*. Instant enlightenment. But it's rather clear that you don't want enlightenment. You just want to be a victim.

kiwimoogle84: Salt Lick Steady: kiwimoogle84: If pot were legalized, it wouldn't be a dirty test if you're positive.

And if my aunt were my uncle, you'd still be a dumbass.

That's not nice. Please use your grown up words.

I can't understand all the Hades you are taking for questioning a program that does nothing to improve the current condition or generate a means off of it for its benefactors. I also do not understand the overwhelming support for the welfare programs in their current state. If I found myself in a situation where I was in need of such a program I would want a program that offered me skill training or work where I could advance myself so I could earn more money. I have been through some rough times in my life but I never turned to welfare for help, I went to a temp service and took any job they gave me. I have collected unemployment in my time, but I have no problem with that system since it is limited and they do try and help get people working if you go to their offices and work with them.

I am not white knighting since it is me who is normally the one taking Hades, but I have been too busy at work today. Thanks for covering for me. lol

kiwimoogle84: Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: Smelly Pirate Hooker: kiwimoogle84:

Saw this through referenced comment. My god. Had you considered that my job didn't offer health insurance? You discounted the widowing. Yes, I chose this. Clearly. Oh, and a man beating a woman he's been dating for a year is ok too.

And rap master, my this only got escalated to prove a point. I understand hardship and still never took handouts. Don't want pity. Really I only wanted that guy to just acquiesce that I might have some perspective on the matter.

The problem is, you seem to be saying, "Because I had some tough times, nobody else should get any help, either." Do you not see how callous that is? Almost everybody's had problems. Not everybody thinks that because they got screwed, everybody else should get screwed, too. It's the same kind of meanspirited shiat the Republicans are pimping. And apparently it's working. No better way to deflect the attention of the stupid masses from the people who are really farking them over than to focus on the small percentage of welfare "cheats." Because those welfare-collecting junkies are the cause of all our country's problems.

I want people who truly need help to get it. It's those who take advantage I have issues with.

And I happen to think you've done things I consider abuse while you were seeking financial assistance. Do you understand that?

A student loan is NOT financial assistance. And if I've done things in my life that you don't agree with on a moral level, I apologize but no two people believe the same things. I won't attack you for your beliefs if you don't attack me for mine.


kiwimoogle84: Salt Lick Steady: kiwimoogle84: If pot were legalized, it wouldn't be a dirty test if you're positive.

And if my aunt were my uncle, you'd still be a dumbass.

That's not nice. Please use your grown up words.

Sweetheart, if pot were legal, they wouldn't be testing for it in the first place.

kiwimoogle84: Is it unconstitutional for your employer to drug test you then?

And I'd be happy to educate myself further on these policies. Link me. I'll read it.

No, you see honey, the federal Bill of Rights only applies to state action; it does not apply to private action. You'd know that if you knew the first thing about the constitution, sweetheart. Oh, and is your google broken? Do you want me to fix that for you?

/nice enough for your delicate sensibilities?

Don't have delicate sensibilities. I simply see no need to resort to second grade insults. Educated men discuss ideas. Fools discuss other people.

And sure. I'd be happy to educate myself further on these matters that I might be more informed the next time this type of discussion arises. In the meantime, would you please just agree that I am entitled to my opinion whether you think it's wrong or not?

I have not yet attacked you. Others have and are. That's not my fight and I don't care. You've offered your opinion. I am offering mine. None of this is the point.

The point is that restricting access to help based on what you deem as socially acceptable is not valid legislation. You would be upset if I restricted your access to assistance because of your life style choices. This is not valid legislation.

In regards to your assertion that student loans are not financial system: where did I say otherwise? I don't recall ever mentioning student loans. That's certainly not the type of financial assistance I stated you accepted.

kiwimoogle84: Fine. But the next time you have an opinion that differs from other people EVEN WHEN SOME PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU, I'll remember you said that.

I just don't understand what part of this isn't sinking in with you....

The problem here isn't that your opinion differs, the problem here is that the facts, readily available to you and everyone else here, differ from your opinion and you seem entirely dead set against altering your opinion to recognize that reality.

If you don't want people to mock you, don't try so hard to make reasons for them to mock you. The numbers are right there in the article. With 100% testing, they caught 2.6% of recipients abusing drugs. Whether you can do the math or not, does it not make some level of sense to you that "two point six percent" is a very, very small number of people and that it would be very, very difficult to effectively root them out with randomized tests?

Oh, and student loans aren't financial aid? Yea... I'm not even going to touch that one other than to yell FAFSA in your face and wander off chuckling to myself.

kiwimoogle84: Splinshints: kiwimoogle84: I THINK

I'd argue the evidence so far suggests otherwise. Less than 3% of people were using drugs. What part of that makes you think the odds are going to work out better if you randomize it? Or are you just really, REALLY bad at probability?

You keep acting like your opinion can't be wrong when we have actual numbers. You're wrong. The odds on random checks paying off are so long that you'd have to be some sort of super moron to try it now that we know the real numbers because other super morons did something even dumber first. If you test more often than about 1 in 45 people you're almost guaranteed to lose money on the plan, but at 1 in 45, your odds of catching any individual druggy are not good and they rapidly worsen the less frequently you test.

You're just wrong. There's no way around it. You're wrong and the numbers are right there to prove it and yet you persist in being wrong and pretending otherwise by calling your wrongness an "opinion". I don't know where the stupid notion that an opinion can't be wrong came from, but it can be wrong, yours is wrong, and it's not unfair to think less of your intellectual capacity since you keep pushing it anyway.

Fine. But the next time you have an opinion that differs from other people EVEN WHEN SOME PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU, I'll remember you said that.

I just see no need for name calling.

I think you are sometimes mistaking facts for opinions.

stephjimpie: Not to be used as a lifetime income. Grrrr...

The "T" in TANF stands for something ya know...

kiwimoogle84: You will be attacked for your opinion in 3...2...1...

If you don't want people to respond to your opinions, especially if the are inflammatory maybe not post them on a forum where people can respond to your opinions. AM radio host is maybe more your speed...

kiwimoogle84: Oh, and student loans aren't financial aid? Yea... I'm not even going to touch that one other than to yell FAFSA in your face and wander off chuckling to myself.

Fine. You've got me. No need to yell in my face. But there's a huge difference between student loans (which are paid back) and welfare ( which is not paid back). I also never touched a penny of it- it went directly to tuition.

Stick to to your guns chica! It is your opinion that student loans aren't financial assistance, and opinions can't be wrong!

kiwimoogle84: Splinshints: kiwimoogle84: Fine. But the next time you have an opinion that differs from other people EVEN WHEN SOME PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU, I'll remember you said that.

I just don't understand what part of this isn't sinking in with you....

The problem here isn't that your opinion differs, the problem here is that the facts, readily available to you and everyone else here, differ from your opinion and you seem entirely dead set against altering your opinion to recognize that reality.

If you don't want people to mock you, don't try so hard to make reasons for them to mock you. The numbers are right there in the article. With 100% testing, they caught 2.6% of recipients abusing drugs. Whether you can do the math or not, does it not make some level of sense to you that "two point six percent" is a very, very small number of people and that it would be very, very difficult to effectively root them out with randomized tests?

Oh, and student loans aren't financial aid? Yea... I'm not even going to touch that one other than to yell FAFSA in your face and wander off chuckling to myself.

Fine. You've got me. No need to yell in my face. But there's a huge difference between student loans (which are paid back) and welfare ( which is not paid back). I also never touched a penny of it- it went directly to tuition.

If welfare is something that one pays in to, then do they not contribute to the program?

umad: Welfare is a privilege too. If you don't feel like jumping through some hoops, then the solution is simple: Don't sign up for it.

That's not how the constitution works.

kiwimoogle84: Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: Splinshints: kiwimoogle84: I THINK

I'd argue the evidence so far suggests otherwise. Less than 3% of people were using drugs. What part of that makes you think the odds are going to work out better if you randomize it? Or are you just really, REALLY bad at probability?

You keep acting like your opinion can't be wrong when we have actual numbers. You're wrong. The odds on random checks paying off are so long that you'd have to be some sort of super moron to try it now that we know the real numbers because other super morons did something even dumber first. If you test more often than about 1 in 45 people you're almost guaranteed to lose money on the plan, but at 1 in 45, your odds of catching any individual druggy are not good and they rapidly worsen the less frequently you test.

You're just wrong. There's no way around it. You're wrong and the numbers are right there to prove it and yet you persist in being wrong and pretending otherwise by calling your wrongness an "opinion". I don't know where the stupid notion that an opinion can't be wrong came from, but it can be wrong, yours is wrong, and it's not unfair to think less of your intellectual capacity since you keep pushing it anyway.

Fine. But the next time you have an opinion that differs from other people EVEN WHEN SOME PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU, I'll remember you said that.

I just see no need for name calling.

I think you are sometimes mistaking facts for opinions.

The facts are there, yes. But I still have my opinions regarding the rest of the welfare system which have been previously stated. So yes. This project didn't work and is deemed unconstitutional. The end. You've berated me into a corner. Fine.

/random drug tests here all the time
//federal employee

Why are you attacking me?

I've been nothing but civil.