If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Drug users can graduate from Columbia, Yale, and Harvard, but they can't finish high school. They can be lawyers, scientists, actors, athletes, and politicians, but can't hold a job. Therefore we must drug test all welfare and unemployment recipients   (reason.com) divider line 98
    More: Obvious, Harvard, David Dewhurst, Jacob Sullum, finishing schools, Whataburger, school of business, athlete of the year, syndicated columnist  
•       •       •

2093 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Nov 2012 at 8:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-14 03:52:14 PM
FTA:

Perry said yesterday. "This isn't all about punishing".

Yes it is.

"This is also an incentive to get people off these drugs."

No it isn't.
 
2012-11-14 04:07:10 PM
Florida did that.

Turns out they wasted far more money than they would have saved since people on welfare tend not to have any money for drugs.

But it was great for the governor's pocket book, seeing as how his family owned the company the state contracted.
 
2012-11-14 04:29:58 PM
I assume random alcohol tests are involved as well? Or did the Distilled Spirits Lobby take care of that?
 
2012-11-14 04:36:50 PM
Subby, you are trying to make sense of the utterances of drug-crazed Republicans. It is less rewarding than trying to make sense of some poor dumb loser who is actually under the influence.
 
2012-11-14 04:37:36 PM

jj325: I assume random alcohol tests are involved as well? Or did the Distilled Spirits Lobby take care of that?


That's my only hangup with these things. Can you still spend money on booze and cigarettes? Gambling?
 
2012-11-14 04:37:58 PM
Really I kind of feel like the government should have full access to welfare recipients' complete finances and go through them with a fine toothed comb.
Make all frivolous welfare spending illegal. Targeting drugs specifically is just silly.
 
2012-11-14 04:40:51 PM

serial_crusher: Really I kind of feel like the government should have full access to welfare recipients' complete finances and go through them with a fine toothed comb.
Make all frivolous welfare spending illegal. Targeting drugs specifically is just silly.


Really, if we're going to be doing this at all, your suggestion is the only way to do it right.

And besides, testing positive isn't proof they purchased drugs. Just that they consumed them.
 
2012-11-14 04:46:10 PM

serial_crusher: Really I kind of feel like the government should have full access to welfare recipients' complete finances and go through them with a fine toothed comb.
Make all frivolous welfare spending illegal.



Cost/benefit.

You're going to run into the same problem where the ridiculous level of oversight of the program costs as much or more than providing it.
 
2012-11-14 04:51:15 PM

Aarontology: Florida did that.

Turns out they wasted far more money than they would have saved since people on welfare tend not to have any money for drugs.

But it was great for the governor's pocket book, seeing as how his family owned the company the state contracted.


Do you mean Solantic, the urgent-care chain? The State did not contract with that firm for drug tests. There was stupid speculation that Scott's moves would drive business to Solantic as more people sought "precautionary" drug tests on their own.

Also, the trust that held Solantic shares in Mrs. Scott's name sold those shares last April.

Testing TANF applicants is a waste of money, I agree. You'd think Perry and Scott would be BFFs who share their lessons.
 
2012-11-14 05:35:56 PM
I don't support this for a lot of reasons, but it is naive to say 'well their are successful people that do drugs so they don't matter'. If you are unemployed and receiving support, is it really that much to ask that you avoid being farked up all the time and maybe focus on being productive? Plus if you are going to fail a drug test, that is kind of a big hurdle to climb over if you are legitimately trying to get employed.
 
2012-11-14 05:40:56 PM

Rev.K: serial_crusher: Really I kind of feel like the government should have full access to welfare recipients' complete finances and go through them with a fine toothed comb.
Make all frivolous welfare spending illegal.

Cost/benefit.

You're going to run into the same problem where the ridiculous level of oversight of the program costs as much or more than providing it.


So, basically the same as the drug testing then?
 
2012-11-14 05:43:24 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Do you mean Solantic, the urgent-care chain? The State did not contract with that firm for drug tests. There was stupid speculation that Scott's moves would drive business to Solantic as more people sought "precautionary" drug tests on their own.

Also, the trust that held Solantic shares in Mrs. Scott's name sold those shares last April.

Testing TANF applicants is a waste of money, I agree. You'd think Perry and Scott would be BFFs who share their lessons.


Ah, I guess I was wrong. I thought they owned the company that manufactured the drug tests
 
2012-11-14 05:48:36 PM

serial_crusher: So, basically the same as the drug testing then?


Yeah, pretty much.
 
2012-11-14 06:00:48 PM

NickelP: I don't support this for a lot of reasons, but it is naive to say 'well their are successful people that do drugs so they don't matter'. If you are unemployed and receiving support, is it really that much to ask that you avoid being farked up all the time and maybe focus on being productive?


The newspaper I worked for crashed and burned because the parent company rolled it in with a bunch of other interests that tanked the company. For the first time in my life, I was on unemployment. I remained on it for almost three months while the employees of the paper rallied together to launch a new product, saving our jobs and a business in a struggling economy. I had to create a new website, layout print designs, edit new footage and cut together new bumpers - I was putting in 12 hours a day for weeks. At the end of it, we saved the paper and everyone's jobs.

I was high for a lot of it, and more productive because of it. Is it too much to ask for people to mind their own business?
 
2012-11-14 06:07:56 PM

vartian: The newspaper I worked for crashed and burned because the parent company rolled it in with a bunch of other interests that tanked the company. For the first time in my life, I was on unemployment. I remained on it for almost three months while the employees of the paper rallied together to launch a new product, saving our jobs and a business in a struggling economy. I had to create a new website, layout print designs, edit new footage and cut together new bumpers - I was putting in 12 hours a day for weeks. At the end of it, we saved the paper and everyone's jobs.


That is amazing. A story of true perseverance and dedicatio...

vartian: I was high for a lot of it


You drug-addicted scum.
 
2012-11-14 06:16:10 PM

vartian: NickelP: I don't support this for a lot of reasons, but it is naive to say 'well their are successful people that do drugs so they don't matter'. If you are unemployed and receiving support, is it really that much to ask that you avoid being farked up all the time and maybe focus on being productive?

The newspaper I worked for crashed and burned because the parent company rolled it in with a bunch of other interests that tanked the company. For the first time in my life, I was on unemployment. I remained on it for almost three months while the employees of the paper rallied together to launch a new product, saving our jobs and a business in a struggling economy. I had to create a new website, layout print designs, edit new footage and cut together new bumpers - I was putting in 12 hours a day for weeks. At the end of it, we saved the paper and everyone's jobs.

I was high for a lot of it, and more productive because of it. Is it too much to ask for people to mind their own business?


So we should all use drugs and all failing companies will be saved? People should mind their own business, and as I said I don't think there should be drug tests for this stuff, but a lot of employers do test. What would you have done if that newspaper didn't come back and you were forced to apply for other papers or even different industries? Just avoid anyone requiring a drug test or cheat on it? Damn my only point was if things are going shiat tastically financially that may be a good time to take a break from stuff that is likely to make it harder to fix your situation. I find it very hard to believe being on drugs is a + for most peoples employment options. Personally, if I was looking for work I'd probably avoid things that will limit my options. That is all.
 
2012-11-14 06:54:52 PM
I'm so very, very confused. Did I just read something salient and, well, reasoned, from Reason?
 
2012-11-14 07:12:30 PM

So we should all use drugs and all failing companies will be saved?


That's not what he said. At all. You know that.

The point is that testing welfare recipients for drug usage does two things 1) costs lots more money than it saves 2) finds that welfare recipients have a lower rate of drug usage than the general population 3) Doesn't actually provide an answer to the question "what do you do if a welfare recipient is on drugs" - just let them starve? Let their kids starve?

So having eliminated possibility a) that people support this becuase it's a good idea that saves money we are left with possiblity b) it's part of a plan to demonise welfare recipients as lazy drug takers.

In other words it's the same totally retarded republican horseshiat that just lost these tardbuckets the presidency and the senate.
 
2012-11-14 07:35:16 PM

Tigger: So we should all use drugs and all failing companies will be saved?

That's not what he said. At all. You know that.


True but when he brags about being more productive because he was high he really is suggesting this point. I just really am not sure the point of his story. He went three months without finding other employment and was saved because his last employer called him back. I am sure he worked hard for them, and don't mean to minimize that, but I don't see his point really if it isn't 'drugs are good'. I think most people on unemployment would be pretty happy to get called back to their last company, but that isn't usually realistic, so the smart ones try to avoid things that will hurt their odds of finding a good job.


The point is that testing welfare recipients for drug usage does two things 1) costs lots more money than it saves 2) finds that welfare recipients have a lower rate of drug usage than the general population 3) Doesn't actually provide an answer to the question "what do you do if a welfare recipient is on drugs" - just let them starve? Let their kids starve?

So having eliminated possibility a) that people support this becuase it's a good idea that saves money we are left with possiblity b) it's part of a plan to demonise welfare recipients as lazy drug takers.

In other words it's the same totally retarded republican horseshiat that just lost these tardbuckets the presidency and the senate.


I agree with all of this. 2. does seem to suggest a lot of people have the good sense to avoid drugs in this situation though.
 
2012-11-14 07:50:32 PM

NickelP: I don't support this for a lot of reasons, but it is naive to say 'well their are successful people that do drugs so they don't matter'. If you are unemployed and receiving support, is it really that much to ask that you avoid being farked up all the time and maybe focus on being productive? Plus if you are going to fail a drug test, that is kind of a big hurdle to climb over if you are legitimately trying to get employed.


Tell you what - go ahead and drug test people on public assistance. That will be fine IF you also test those receiving guaranteed student loans, FEMA assistance following a disaster, etc.

The problem isn't so much the testing, but how narrowly it would be applied. And it's unnecessarily punitive, making an already beat-down populace feel even worse about themselves. We've all met Shaniqua and her 14 screaming children, but not everyone on assistance is the queen Ronald Reagan popularized. Why punish them but no one else receiving government aid of any stripe?
 
2012-11-14 07:53:07 PM

NickelP: I don't support this for a lot of reasons, but it is naive to say 'well their are successful people that do drugs so they don't matter'. If you are unemployed and receiving support, is it really that much to ask that you avoid being farked up all the time and maybe focus on being productive? Plus if you are going to fail a drug test, that is kind of a big hurdle to climb over if you are legitimately trying to get employed.


Yes.

If there's ever a time you need a shot of amphetamines , it's at rock farkin' bottom when all hope is lost.
 
2012-11-14 08:04:04 PM
Ok let me summarize this for everyone who ignored the very first part of what I said:

Drug testing wellfare/unemployed: Dumb
Using drugs while on wellfare/unemployed: Dumb

Out of curiosity do you all get your panties in a wad that you can't use food stamps to buy alcohol and cigarettes or is that totally different?
 
2012-11-14 08:04:18 PM
But cocaine and meth make you job hunt SO MUCH FASTER!!!
 
2012-11-14 08:04:51 PM
So, while he was alive and doing his best work under heroin, Ray Charles was useless?
 
2012-11-14 08:05:50 PM

NickelP: Ok let me summarize this for everyone who ignored the very first part of what I said:

Drug testing wellfare/unemployed: Dumb
Using drugs while on wellfare/unemployed: Dumb

Out of curiosity do you all get your panties in a wad that you can't use food stamps to buy alcohol and cigarettes or is that totally different?


It depends on the drug.
 
2012-11-14 08:08:05 PM

NickelP: Ok let me summarize this for everyone who ignored the very first part of what I said:

Drug testing wellfare/unemployed: Dumb
Using drugs while on wellfare/unemployed: Dumb

Out of curiosity do you all get your panties in a wad that you can't use food stamps to buy alcohol and cigarettes or is that totally different?


Hey, guess who's got two thumbs and is going on ignore!
 
2012-11-14 08:08:09 PM

fusillade762: But cocaine and meth make you job hunt SO MUCH FASTER!!!


Have you ever hunted for a job...on WEED?
 
2012-11-14 08:08:42 PM
I am all for this if they drug-test all recipients for government funds. Like bankers and defense contractors.
 
2012-11-14 08:10:13 PM
Hey, let's invest in rehabilitation which doesn't rehabilitate rather than improving education in the hardest hit areas of our country!

The GOP: Closing the barn door after the horse got out before there were barns. Or horses.
 
2012-11-14 08:10:14 PM
If I have to get drug tested to make the money so that I can have it taken from me to give to them, they can get drug tested too.
 
2012-11-14 08:10:32 PM
I guess the drug dealers will now need to focus on a better class of people, since the unemployed and welfare crowd won't have the walking around money for that sport anymore. 

They may need to move their operation to nicer parts of town, too. Or the internets.
 
2012-11-14 08:10:58 PM
It's a good thing people on drugs don't need food, shelter, or medical treatment. Taking away their lifeline of last resort won't hurt anyone.

/amidoinitrite?
 
2012-11-14 08:11:48 PM
I'm against random drug testing in general. If someone shows signs that they are using drugs and that it is negatively affecting their work, then perhaps testing would be needed. Otherwise it's just a way for people to stick their noses in other people's business.

This... is just douchebags trying to screw over people who are already in a bad situation. Yes, we get it. You hate everyone who is poor or getting assistance... unless of course it's you.
 
2012-11-14 08:12:14 PM

beta_plus: If I have to get drug tested to make the money so that I can have it taken from me to give to them, they can get drug tested too.


I hope you enjoy having more money taken from you to pay for these tests than you'll save by catching people.
 
2012-11-14 08:13:00 PM

NickelP: Out of curiosity do you all get your panties in a wad that you can't use food stamps to buy alcohol and cigarettes or is that totally different?


Apparently it is, at least from the point of view of those who administer the tests and promote their use since these tests don't look for alcohol or nicotine.
 
2012-11-14 08:14:23 PM
The Daily Show bit on the Florida version of this law remains as apropos as ever...
 
2012-11-14 08:16:45 PM

beta_plus: If I have to get drug tested to make the money so that I can have it taken from me to give to them, they can get drug tested too.


Blame St. ReaganLink
 
2012-11-14 08:19:40 PM
Want to test the recipients of welfare? Fine.

Test every political appointee, lawyer, doctor, and police officer.
 
2012-11-14 08:33:34 PM

Cinaed: Want to test the recipients of welfare? Fine.

Test every political appointee, lawyer, doctor, and police officer.


And every recipient of corporate welfare.

/and really if we are serious about preventing our tax dollars from being wasted, why don't we give require an exam in household economics?
 
2012-11-14 08:33:34 PM
More big government. So, how you gonna pay for that?
 
2012-11-14 08:35:57 PM
Why just the poor people?

If you file for any deduction at all, that is my tax money going to support you and that is tax money that you could be spending on drugs. I demand anyone claiming a deduction be drug tested.

And people who receive arm subsidies
And oil subsidies
And government pensions

Why just the poor people?
 
2012-11-14 08:38:57 PM

edmo: More big government. So, how you gonna pay for that?


You see, if we cut the taxes for the rich, they create jobs, job holders pay taxes... ugh, ugh, yeah, yeah, Reagan, REAGAN, RAYGUUUUUUN!

//spent
 
2012-11-14 08:41:09 PM

delathi: Why just the poor people?

If you file for any deduction at all, that is my tax money going to support you and that is tax money that you could be spending on drugs. I demand anyone claiming a deduction be drug tested.

And people who receive arm subsidies
And oil subsidies
And government pensions

Why just the poor people?


Because poor people can't lawyer themselves out of a fix.
 
2012-11-14 08:41:29 PM
Why stop at testing the poor people for drugs. Maybe the government can hire a bunch of people to follow the poor people around to monitor everything they do. Maybe fine the poor people if they have a soda that isn't diet or if they have a candy bar. Or even better... just round up the 40+ million people on food stamps and ship them off to concentration camps where they can be sterilized so they won't breed. Obviously, poor people are too worthless and stupid to ever make a good decision for themselves... because they are the only ones who are at fault for their own circumstances :-/

SO... how about every self righteous ass monkey out there who thinks that just because someone is poor means that they are a waste of good oxygen should go find a speeding train to stand in front of. It shouldn't be too hard to do, as the perfect, unblemished successful people can certainly figure out a train schedule.
 
2012-11-14 08:43:05 PM
I agree that people who take government assistance shouldn't be on illegal drugs.


This includes army contractors, congress people, their staff, supreme court justices, police, and anyone else who takes a check signed by Uncle Sam.

Drug test everyone, or drug test no one.
 
2012-11-14 08:44:11 PM

delathi: Why just the poor people?

If you file for any deduction at all, that is my tax money going to support you and that is tax money that you could be spending on drugs. I demand anyone claiming a deduction be drug tested.

And people who receive arm subsidies
And oil subsidies
And government pensions

Why just the poor people?


static.disaboom.com
 
2012-11-14 08:45:47 PM

OrygunFarker: I agree that people who take government assistance shouldn't be on illegal drugs.


This includes army contractors, congress people, their staff, supreme court justices, police, and anyone else who takes a check signed by Uncle Sam.

Drug test everyone, or drug test no one.


Waiting, but not holding my breath, for all the flat tax patriots to come in to defend you on the basis of equality in government.
 
2012-11-14 08:45:58 PM
I bet urinalysis companies across the nation are planning their dream homes and vacations right now.

Unnecessary testing this is golden to them.

Seriously, everyone I have ever known on drugs was not on assistance at the time. They use when they are well Off. You are only punishing them for needing assistance.

Also, weed is in your system 30+ days. Ecstasy, coke, meth... 3-5. So, who are you really after?
 
2012-11-14 08:47:49 PM

jaytkay: I am all for this if they drug-test all recipients for government funds. Like bankers and defense contractors.


Slow your roll.

//Defense contractor. Well, subcontractor.
//Don't do drugs, they mess you up. Now, let me go get another whiskey...
 
2012-11-14 08:48:39 PM
pfft. real drug dealers live in the 'burbs, drive nice cars, and don't get pulled over by the police for driving while black

dime-bag johnny and methed out marvin and their clientele of deadbeats? bottom of the chain, man, not the top.
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report