None personally, I've been to H&R block, does that count?
I know I'm taking this all personally but for me this is personal, and I'm sorry (everybody) if I come across as a jerk.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Mandantory Drug Tests
- Thread starter sandmangeck
- Start date
- Status
None personally, I've been to H&R block, does that count?
I know I'm taking this all personally but for me this is personal, and I'm sorry (everybody) if I come across as a jerk.
You're not coming across as a jerk. You're coming across as an educated person with an opinion. I honestly don't think what I originally posted pertains to you, or your situation.
so i guess the obvious question is who pays....the poor cannot,the rich will not,so that leaves working folks with the burden...and if i have bills to pay i don't get new shoes either...i still have to pay for the welfare system before i can tend to my own needs....so indeed,where does it stop.....canookistanians pay HALF of every dollar in taxes,probably more when you factor in property and school levies....
No offence taken here, and I hope I've not given any either. Spirited debate = good. Spite / personal attacks = bad - and there haven't been any of those.
It's one of those subjects where how you feel is bound to be based on which side of things you're sitting on.
To make the "taxpayer" side a little clearer, consider your $20 shoe example.
No decent person would begrudge a child an adequate pair of shoes. (And I usually pay $20 or so for my shoes at the local surplus outlet, so I know that's enough for adequate).
But if you're wanting more than adequate, then you have to look at the cost to the person who's paying. Say (for example's sake) you get a $40 pair of shoes instead. The average hourly wage in the US is just under $20/hr, so that means that the "upgrade" has cost someone an hour of their life. Can you see how someone working 60hr weeks to support their family might resent having to give up an hour with their kids unnecessarily because of someone else's choices?
It's only one side of things, and I appreciate that, and thank you for sharing your insights. I don't think that this thread was intended to suggest cutting welfare for those who genuinely need it, just those who are abusing it.
And I can definitely see where they would be coming from. I would be pretty mad too, but I guess because I've never met a person on welfare that abuses it, it is hard for me to believe.
I know of the horror stories, but have never experienced them first hand.
If I was paying taxes, I would be happy knowing that some of that money goes to the single parent, the ford worker laid off, the guy trying to figure out how to prevent his kids from starving. I would know that all those people appreciate what you sacrifice, and I even know a couple people that say a prayer for the people that helped them get through the day in the form of welfare.
There will always be someone to cheat the system, it's unfortunate that the honest people that really need this have to suffer more than they already do, because of those a-holes.
But all of that is emotional argument and really has no place.
I brought up the point earlier about drug addicts robbing and killing for drug money if they were denied welfare. The people cheating the system are the ones willing to stoop to any level to get drugs.
well at least you're not braindead.
if you want the government's money, obey the LAW.
so many people walk around acting like being a drug user is some sort of right, then get mad at the police for getting busted. you break the law (the one that you agree to by remaining a citizen of this country), you get punished thusly.
most of them.
anyone who can formulate a sentence and choose to break the law or get hooked on something that is going to kill them is stupid. plain and simple. they know the risks. the school tells them all day long. they ignore such risks and do it anyway. thats stupidity. peer pressure? weakness. inability to quit? weakness.
i mostly blame parents and the occasional careless school teacher. they are raising the next batch of humans that is supposed to run the world.. and the way its looking, we're all doomed in about 20 years.
im not going after people who are disabled or unqualified for a well paying job because somehow the education system failed them (HA!).
im going after drug users. the scum of the earth. they dont deserve my hard earned money. i have a degree. im in a lot of debt. i work in a ****ing grocery store. i make ends meet. how? sure as **** not by selling drugs. and im definitely not wasting all my money on them either. im sure i could apply for welfare, but i was raised better than that. i can make it work, so i will. i was brought up with no money and i turned out just fine, ill continue to be poor and do just fine.
Do you ride the bus? That's subsidized.
Own a house? Subsidized.
Send your kids to public school? Subsidized.
Use residential electric service? Subsidized.
If you want those subsidies, why not take a drug test and do your 8 hours a week of community service?
Without those subsidies, you probably wouldn't be able to afford your booze and dope, so it's arguable that the subsidies are paying for those things.
[/troll]
In my view, the safety net is a good economic policy. Since the New Deal was enacted, we've had economic cycles, but we haven't had an economic meltdown of the scale of the Great Depression -- or a political / social collapse such as occurred in Europe during that period.
However, the New Deal was sold to the public on altruistic grounds. But it seems like we have gone from being an altruistic society, to a punitive society. I think that measures such as drug-testing welfare applicants would be a purely symbolic punitive measure with no real economic impact.
I've read online that roughly 2% of people fail drug tests. If the average welfare recipient gets a $10k/year benefit, then drug testing would only save us $200/year per recipient. Yet the testing itself could cost us that much -- $50 for the test and $150 for a bureaucrat to handle the paperwork. Harassing the poor is indeed purely ceremonial. Contrast that to the tens of billions of dollars that the government pays out in subsidies, and that we lose in revenue due to tax fraud.
I don't know about all of the welfare programs, but here in Madison, the Section 8 program mainly serves single working moms, who have a strong interest in safe, stable neighborhoods. If given the power, they would drive the drug dealers out. It also indirectly subsidizes landlords who agree to the conditions required by the Section 8 program for maintaining their properties.
Own a house? Subsidized.
Send your kids to public school? Subsidized.
Use residential electric service? Subsidized.
If you want those subsidies, why not take a drug test and do your 8 hours a week of community service?
Without those subsidies, you probably wouldn't be able to afford your booze and dope, so it's arguable that the subsidies are paying for those things.
[/troll]
In my view, the safety net is a good economic policy. Since the New Deal was enacted, we've had economic cycles, but we haven't had an economic meltdown of the scale of the Great Depression -- or a political / social collapse such as occurred in Europe during that period.
However, the New Deal was sold to the public on altruistic grounds. But it seems like we have gone from being an altruistic society, to a punitive society. I think that measures such as drug-testing welfare applicants would be a purely symbolic punitive measure with no real economic impact.
I've read online that roughly 2% of people fail drug tests. If the average welfare recipient gets a $10k/year benefit, then drug testing would only save us $200/year per recipient. Yet the testing itself could cost us that much -- $50 for the test and $150 for a bureaucrat to handle the paperwork. Harassing the poor is indeed purely ceremonial. Contrast that to the tens of billions of dollars that the government pays out in subsidies, and that we lose in revenue due to tax fraud.
I don't know about all of the welfare programs, but here in Madison, the Section 8 program mainly serves single working moms, who have a strong interest in safe, stable neighborhoods. If given the power, they would drive the drug dealers out. It also indirectly subsidizes landlords who agree to the conditions required by the Section 8 program for maintaining their properties.
Exactly. Most of the compounds in coke are out in 4-7 days, other hard drugs are 48 hours, some a little longer. You are singling out a specific type of user.
It has nothing to do with having the right to be a drug user. It does have to do with being protected against unlawful searches. If you do not have probable cause, you cannot search someone. Being poor, or needing some form of government aid isn't probable cause.
Both pare valid points in my opinion. People shouldn't be subject to rights violations just because they need aid, and the costs outweigh the benefits to me. Without research into the cost/benefit ratio, it is unfair to conclude that drug testing will save any money at all. Reform in other areas such as fraud are much more plausible ideas.
again, if you want the government's money, you should be a law abiding citizen.
a family goes to adopt a child. a DEEP background check is done. likely with a drug test (or multiple) to prove you will be a fit parent. one has to prove they are responsible for another life.
a family decides they need help surviving for various reasons. why is it so far fetched to think they should have to prove that they are law abiding citizens? where did their money go? crack? very possible. those who have nothing to hide shouldnt have an issue. those WITH something to hide shouldnt ask the government for help.
thats like waltzing down the police station to fight a parking ticket when you have a warrant.
a piss test isnt troublesome. its not degrading. no one gets hurt. why is that such a violation of rights? they are checking to see if you broke the law. are the cameras that catch people speeding somehow violating a right against unlawful surveillance? certainly those that abide by traffic laws should have their privacy.
get a pulse.
I'm going to ignore the personal attack and get to the point.
It has nothing to do with having anything to hide. It has to do with the government overstepping its bounds. I do not wish to be subject to a "random" drug test everytime I want to do anything in this country. I have the right to be protected from an unwarranted search of my person. I receive federal money to go to college, should I be subject to a monthly drug test while I'm in school? Or an alcohol/cigarette test, even though those are legal? I'm an A/B student with better than a 3.0, and rarely if ever miss class or have an "off" day. As such, what does it matter what I do with my private time? I am obviously doing very well as a student, so why should drug use even be suspected? Furthermore, should people be tested everytime they use a subsidized industry? Should I need to take a drug test to go to a library or museum, or use water, or drive? Should an officer be able to just walk up to you on the street and demand a drug test without any reason whatsoever?
You are comparing apples and oranges. When you get your license to drive, you agree to be subject to the rules of the road, and agree to the punishments levied for breaking those rules. People do not agree to be poor. People do not agree to need aid.
Oh, and let's not forget government-provided financial aid for college. Students, ready to pee in the cup?
Seriously, though, +1 to your sensible, practical points.
why? again, it doesnt hurt. its quick. why not? id be proud to take a urine test every day.
now that you mention it.. yes. thats a fantastic idea. the amount of money i watched kids waste in college was ridiculous. buying alcohol, tattoos and cigarettes with financial aid money. that was silly, but entirely legal. but them buying drugs with the governments money.. thats bad news. so yes, if you want the government's money, you abide he law. im 100% for that idea.
nothing, so long as it is within the confines of the law. if you dont like it, go to canada.
i wouldnt take it personally. i suspect everyone. always. because i know people, and they are by genetic make up stupid and weak. id say 25% of the people i see on a daily basis are clearly on dope. they should be punished.
now thats just silly. you cant use the library to get high. you cant waste government money by riding the bus to do anything. it was going there anyway. even if you buy an 8 ball once you get off the bus.
we are talking about the government giving people money to do with what they please, under the guise that they are going to use it to feed themselves, support their children, etc. walking down the street isnt free money.
we've set up cameras to catch those who break traffic laws, but everyone is being watched. even those with nothing to hide. certainly their rights have somehow been trampled upon.
these people often make the choices to get into that situation, and for those that were somehow completely dropped into that situation through no fault of their own, i dont mind helping them out.
but if it turns out average joe lost his job and his wife and his job was outsourced and he never went to college and his house was struck by lightning and he couldnt pay his insurance with no job and he sleeps in his car.. and he HAPPENS to be a coke addict.. well, then he had every bit of that coming to him. hes a criminal. hes not a victim in any way.
the idea here isnt to snoop in peoples' lives for fun, its to weed out those who do not deserve this money. unfortunately, like most ideas that are based on charity and good will, people had to go and ruin it like the savage bastards they are.
Your posts are more interesting/funnier than the Colbert Report........sometimes......Colbert wins quite a bit. That much silly talk has to be satire....
i take it this is aimed at me.
its not a joke. im just full of malice for the sub-human.
- Status
