The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    What are you assuming when you demand testing? That all poor people are drug addicts?

    Secondly, would the cost of testing gain you any benefit in reduced cost over all? It may not.

    There is also the government intrusion issue. The Constitution protects against government intrusion, but the same rules do not apply to private entity intrusion.
    I agree with you on govt intrusion, to the extent that there is WAY TOO MUCH of it.Let me also add that I am for the decriminalization or legalization of drugs. The war on drugs has been a collossal FAILURE!!
    Other than that I gotta call BS on your post. There is no assumption that all poor are drug addicts. The assumption could be made that if youve got the means or $$ to get non essential drugs & alcohol, then you really shouldn't need govt money for essentials like food & housing
    However the govt like anyone else should be able to put conditions on the reciept of freebies. If you want the freebies, then comply with the conditions. The ultimate goal for many of those recieving govt benefits should be to get them off the govt dole and becoming productive wage earners, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that they would be more employable if they were drug & alcohol free?

    They already do in multiple respects. You are eliminated from getting many govt benefits such as student grants & loans if you are a druggie. Look at the privacy invasions the govt makes us go through to get on an airplane. Have you flown lately?

  2. #22
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smillerdvm View Post
    I agree with you on govt intrusion, to the extent that there is WAY TOO MUCH of it.Let me also add that I am for the decriminalization or legalization of drugs. The war on drugs has been a collossal FAILURE!!
    Other than that I gotta call BS on your post. There is no assumption that all poor are drug addicts. The assumption could be made that if youve got the means or $$ to get non essential drugs & alcohol, then you really shouldn't need govt money for essentials like food & housing
    However the govt like anyone else should be able to put conditions on the reciept of freebies. If you want the freebies, then comply with the conditions. The ultimate goal for many of those recieving govt benefits should be to get them off the govt dole and becoming productive wage earners, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that they would be more employable if they were drug & alcohol free?

    They already do in multiple respects. You are eliminated from getting many govt benefits such as student grants & loans if you are a druggie. Look at the privacy invasions the govt makes us go through to get on an airplane. Have you flown lately?
    Zeus, I have to agree with smillerdvm, we place restrictions on receiving welfare benefits to begin with.

    Whether one believes in decriminalization of recreational drugs or not, if use interferes with employability, then it s definitely relative to receiving a govt freebie as mentioned above.

    I believe there are plenty of govt jobs that require drug testing as well. Probably would be a good idea for politicians. An addicted politician would be that much more susceptible to corruption (if that's possible!) due to his/her addiction.

    PA is starting its program on a "pilot" basis to see what the cost/benefit ratio.

    I also believe that if someone else is paying for your children's essentials, it is fair to require birth control IMO.

    Govt already has plenty of rules for tobacco smokers. I can understand not smoking in the workplace ... but also can't smoke outdoors. Some companies reserve the right to test employees for tobacco use even off the job. Ostensibly for cost-control (i.e. smokers are more likely to be ill, take time off).

    The newest proposals are to tax sugar since obesity is a national problem. Will food stamp purchases then exclude sweet items? It sometimes seems that only the "poor" are not required to meet any levels of personal responsibility? What has that accomplished?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #23
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Zeus, I have to agree with smillerdvm, we place restrictions on receiving welfare benefits to begin with.

    Whether one believes in decriminalization of recreational drugs or not, if use interferes with employability, then it s definitely relative to receiving a govt freebie as mentioned above.

    I believe there are plenty of govt jobs that require drug testing as well. Probably would be a good idea for politicians. An addicted politician would be that much more susceptible to corruption (if that's possible!) due to his/her addiction.

    PA is starting its program on a "pilot" basis to see what the cost/benefit ratio.

    I also believe that if someone else is paying for your children's essentials, it is fair to require birth control IMO.

    Govt already has plenty of rules for tobacco smokers. I can understand not smoking in the workplace ... but also can't smoke outdoors. Some companies reserve the right to test employees for tobacco use even off the job. Ostensibly for cost-control (i.e. smokers are more likely to be ill, take time off).

    The newest proposals are to tax sugar since obesity is a national problem. Will food stamp purchases then exclude sweet items? It sometimes seems that only the "poor" are not required to meet any levels of personal responsibility? What has that accomplished?
    VOTES!!!!


    Just sayin'........


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  4. #24
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    What are you assuming when you demand testing? That all poor people are drug addicts?

    .
    The PA idea is to drug test ONLY those who have been convicted of a drug related felony in the past 5 years.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  5. #25
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    The PA idea is to drug test ONLY those who have been convicted of a drug related felony in the past 5 years.
    That I could see.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  6. #26
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Zeus, I have to agree with smillerdvm, we place restrictions on receiving welfare benefits to begin with.

    Whether one believes in decriminalization of recreational drugs or not, if use interferes with employability, then it s definitely relative to receiving a govt freebie as mentioned above.

    I believe there are plenty of govt jobs that require drug testing as well. Probably would be a good idea for politicians. An addicted politician would be that much more susceptible to corruption (if that's possible!) due to his/her addiction.

    PA is starting its program on a "pilot" basis to see what the cost/benefit ratio.

    I also believe that if someone else is paying for your children's essentials, it is fair to require birth control IMO.

    Govt already has plenty of rules for tobacco smokers. I can understand not smoking in the workplace ... but also can't smoke outdoors. Some companies reserve the right to test employees for tobacco use even off the job. Ostensibly for cost-control (i.e. smokers are more likely to be ill, take time off).

    The newest proposals are to tax sugar since obesity is a national problem. Will food stamp purchases then exclude sweet items? It sometimes seems that only the "poor" are not required to meet any levels of personal responsibility? What has that accomplished?
    My argument is, the governmental intrusion aside, is that the question of whether or not it is worth the cost. Besides, coming down hard doesn't cure the addiction and it only makes it harder to get at when the need arises. If an addiction is in the way of employability, deal with that individual, not spend a lot of money screening a lot of people who may not be affected.

    In my next world people will have to have a license to have kids. Over the years working in child protection, I have seen way too many parents that are simply not equipped to raise their kids. However, we live in a real world where the mere suggestion of birth control requirements imposed by government will spawn a fierce reaction from numerous religious fronts. Joining them, no doubt, will be civil libertarians as well.
    Last edited by zeus3925; 02-06-2012 at 08:18 PM.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  7. #27
    Senior Member HPL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Coastal Bend of Texas
    Posts
    2,818

    Default

    My plan is everyone is sterilized at birth. At 22 (or older) if you want to have a child you take a test. If you pass we reverse the sterilization. As soon as the female is preg, re-sterilize the male and same for the female as soon as she gives birth. If you wish to do it again, we'll see how you are doing four years later.
    Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
    (John Dewey)

    Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
    (George Washington)

    Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!

    www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com

  8. #28
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HPL View Post
    My plan is everyone is sterilized at birth. At 22 (or older) if you want to have a child you take a test. If you pass we reverse the sterilization. As soon as the female is preg, re-sterilize the male and same for the female as soon as she gives birth. If you wish to do it again, we'll see how you are doing four years later.
    Let me guess--You support the Libertarian candidate?
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  9. #29
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HPL View Post
    My plan is everyone is sterilized at birth. At 22 (or older) if you want to have a child you take a test. If you pass we reverse the sterilization. As soon as the female is preg, re-sterilize the male and same for the female as soon as she gives birth. If you wish to do it again, we'll see how you are doing four years later.
    I like it! Too bad you support Newt.

    I'll add that in order to vote, one must;

    prove citizenship
    have passed a basic civics test in English
    pass a basic test in American History and
    have pay taxes over the last three consecutive years

    no skin in the system & country, no vote
    Last edited by Franco; 02-06-2012 at 08:38 PM.
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

  10. #30
    Senior Member HPL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Coastal Bend of Texas
    Posts
    2,818

    Default

    My voting record would indicate that I'm a realist and willing to comprise so actually, I usually vote rep, but did indeed vote Libertarian in the last election. Don't want government interfering in how we live unless I'M in control.
    Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
    (John Dewey)

    Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
    (George Washington)

    Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!

    www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •