Quote:

---

ToiletDuk said:
Well, if you want to swallow Tea Party propaganda, that's up to you. I ain't buying it though.

---

Quote:

---

sk8ordude said:
Some numbers

So they want to drug test every welfare recipient what? monthly? weekly? Anyways lets say a drug test costs $50 a pop and we test once a month. If the average druggie spent $200 on drugs a month they would have to be 25% of the welfare recipients to even balance the scales. These are all conservative estimates too. I personally spend $20 a month on drugs.

Now lets see here, we have all these addicts that wont quit, now they have no money and become desperate, and what do desperate drug addicts do? Crime is often cited by the drug war officials. So they get caught and now the tax payers have to pay 40-60 Gs a year to house these offenders plus $25,000 for state child care, per kid. Instead of simply the $1000 a month in welfare (generous estimate), now for a drug addict mom and 2 kids its $90,000 a year verses maybe $15,000.

But the thing is most welfare people dont have a drug problem an most likely most of them spend less then $50 on drugs a month, so by introducing the tests, logistics, and professional we are spending more. So now it doesn't make any sense, except oppressing the people at the whims of a few rich social conservatives that are apparently retarded if they think this will save money. Fascists.

Also the tests wouldn't curb anything but pot at predictibly once a month, so they would have to be more frequent and random, which would be a logistical nightmare to say the least. Anybody with half a brain would see this flaw, which is back to my first point being that the people running this bitch have brains, they just think the people dont.

---

I don't even know where to start with your statement First off criminals are criminals and should not be given free money so they don't rob someone, thats fucking retarded. I would love for a junkie to try me, tuff guy shit aside I'm not paying for someone to eat so they can do drugs with their spare money and not rob me. I'm living on a tight budget, and I bust my ass everyday for the little things I get to enjoy, I'll be damned if my money is being used by some junkies to live better than me and not have to do shit. If they can't stay clean until they can afford to support themselves and want to rob me, I got plenty of home protection.

Your estimates are by no means conservative. Drug tests don't cost $50 a pop especially for the government, and I know tons of junkies that blow $200 a day on dope.

How would the tests only curb marijuana users(not that it matters they shouldn't be buying weed either)? As I pointed out before; have you ever been on probation? Ever seen how many junkies fail UAs for heroin/opiates, knowing they have a UA and knowing when they fail they are going to jail? I would bet hundreds everyday all across the US, but I have personally seen people getting arrested for dirty UAs at the parole office almost every time I used to report. Addiction is a powerful thing and obviously you don't really grasp how powerful.

Quote:

---

sk8ordude said:
-We are footing $200 dollar a day habits? Shit if I can get that much a month maybe I'll just get on welfare too.

-5% is a conservative estimate for addicted welfare recipients, 25% is completely unrealistic and was only used to illustrate my point.

-Addicts that spend most of their check are probably less then 1%.

-But if saving money is worth spending many times more money, thats your opinion.

-Yeah, the reason welfare was invented was to keep the poor people from revolting, like thousands of years ago. Thats the exact same reason it exists today. If they would just starve and die, a government welfare system probably would never have existed. As I said the status of the poor effects everybody in an economy, states without welfare are exclusively in the third world for a reason.

-Cannabis is easier to detect then the other shit for longer durations of time. Unless we are talking hair tests, then its $100 a pop.

---

If a $200 dollar a day dope habit sounds absurd to you then you obviously don't know any opiate addicts.

You keep spouting out these numbers, but with nothing to back them up. You may think me saying I know people that actually spend upwards of $200 dollars a day is wrong, but you can talk to any real opiate addict on here or in the real world. And like you said "shit if I can get that much a month maybe I'll just get on welfare too" well see thats the fucking problem. It's too inviting, to easy to sit back on your ass, not work, and live off your fellow man.

1% of welfare users are drug users? Are you fucking high? Thats the only conservative number you have stated.

Like I said I was on food stamps for a couple months and I would have taken a UA if it was required, no problem. And I am not saying do away with welfare, but regulate it. If someone has got money for drugs then they got money for food.

There are many countries without welfare programs like ours and they are not third world where do you learn this stuff?

Quote:

---

sk8ordude said:
-I dont doubt people have $200 a day habits, I doubt that welfare is paying for it. I will go on welfare for $6,000 a month, because I'm only making $800 a month working.

-1% of welfare users spend the most of the check. Did you even read the post? I think drug users account for more.

I'm saying that it is obviously not cost effective to test for drugs and only serves to set another precedent and further crowd the prisons. There is very little difference between this, and testing everybody for their driving privilages. Even if it were to somehow break even in costs its still not worth having the precedent set.

Are you trolling me? I said countries without welfare systems are exclusive to the third world.

---

Quote:

---

ToiletDuk said:
Drug screens can be beaten, and the worst drugs are out of your system in a short time. Besides, this will invariably cost more than it save, as Florida's program was proving.

---

Quote:

---

sk8ordude said:
I dont think it will do anything but cost more money, and unless they do randoms on a weekly basis, it will only weed out weed.

I disagree with UAs too, its discrimination and invasive, somehow the drug war found a loophole in our rights of privacy through private business and through insurance companies...

---

Quote:

---

sk8ordude said:
I disagree sir.

I dont get high at work, I smoke some cannabis purchased with my hard earned money when I'm done with work. Just because other people might choose to, why does that mean I do? Drinking alchol on the job isnt allowed, but they arent discriminated against like that. So whats the difference aside from the legality of the substance in question? Governments fault.

The government is responsible for allowing such discrimination to take place, and putting out the propaganda that brewed such ideas.

---

Just cause you don't smoke at work doesn't mean people don't. Thats like saying that you should be able to drink and drive you cause you don't get wasted, well enough people do get wasted and kill people that its safer just to outlaw drinking and driving.

"Drinking alcohol on the job isnt allowed, but they arent discriminated against like that"

First off it's not discrimination. Drugs are illegal whether we like it or not, having someone involved in illegal activities can also cause problems. What if you were arrested for possession and miss work? Thats fair to your employer? Also I'm pretty sure if you showed up to work with alcohol on your breath they would fire you on the spot or kick you out of the interview. So lets get real here or just stop

You can keep blaming the government, but please explain to me how the government is out for us so badly if the supreme court threw the law out? It is getting really annoying that your only response is "It's the governments fault man" you can't even refute what I am saying with a solid real argument please address the whole of my statement instead of a single sentence of it or we can just stop.

Quote:

---

sk8ordude said:
So you think that if you do drugs you are under the influence as long as they are detectible in a UA? Because thats the only way your drunk driving analogy makes sense.

So what? Stealing and murder are illegal too, should they also be allowed to search my house for stolen goods and dead bodies as a pre-employment requirement? Why should my body fluids be less protected then my property?

---

No my comparison is pretty relevant as I pointed out many many people get high at work. Just because you don't doesn't mean others don't and not only that but if you are using illegal drugs you can be arrested at any time. It's not good business practice to hire someone who may not be at work because of their illegal activity. But now your getting extreme. Your bodily fluids are protected, don't want a job that requires a UA don't apply. Apply and your agreeing to their terms.

They can check your criminal record for theft charges and make a hiring decision based on what they find there. I think most employers take their chances that your not a killer. Really though man I think you know all this and are arguing to argue. Your posts get more and more off base, and again you address bits and pieces of a statement I make which just goes to show I am right. You really have me ing with some of the stuff you come up with.