HeroMike said:

AntiEverything said:

blewmeanie said:

I don't want the government drug testing anyone, fuck that.

---

ugh god i fucking hate liberals

you should drug test people on wel fare, come on, think about the actual consequences to our national economy vs. the mild increase in freedom for those too lazy to feed our socialist capitalist system

---

Your an ignorant sub urban white kid . Granted yes their are many people abusing the system . But growing up in the inner city with schools the way they are now , its a miracle that anyone makes it out alive. Not mentioning the environment and culture that has formed in areas of lower income .

Boosting our economy ? whos paying for these drug tests ? "too lazy" ? am I to lazy ? are you ? wheres the red tape and the line in the sand ?

If anything we should find ways to employ and change wel fare laws all together as we slowly ween America off of them . The systems that support the needy were implemented unconstitutionally waaay back in the day . The support system that "freed" us of finical ruin in the first great depression .

If its anyone's fault its every single fucking one of us for living in a capitalistic society where class systems are unavoidable . Where the middle class begs the upper class for protection from the lower class . The lower class begs for help from the upper class and while both other of the lower tiers are just trying to LIVE the upper class sits modestly and watches . Arguments on internal government changes at this point are a joke . We need to evolve as a species or we are only doomed to repeat our current reality until we destroy everything around us and ourselves .

---

this is almost an absurd example of why liberalism is bad especially American Liberalism. For one the user seems to be completely opposed to the statement that I have made, all the while fundamentally ignoring that we support the same values: stopping wel-fare, supporting drug use. He of course chooses the easiest moralist liberal viewpoint: 1.) side of the drug user and 2.) side of being free from the oppression of taking drug tests while on welfare. at the same time he attacks then supports my viewpoint. he goes on to admit even that welfare is bad, yet forms a downward thesis IMO at the end with finishing the post off with: well welfare is a broken system, but the answer is of course for humanity to evolve, the easiest answer for a liberal "well the system is ruined already so there is no point in trying to fix anything let's just wait to evolve"

maybe drug use wouldn't be seen as a public health issue if people saw that the lowest class possible isn't even allowed to use drugs. relieving the lazy of their responsibilities towards society makes the drug user look like a lazy coward that relies on wel fare, it only serves to further the bad stereotypes associated with drug use.

Prisoner#1 said:

that's why I support workfare, you want a government check, you need to
spend a required number of hours working your ass off cleaning up toilets
in public offices, sweep floor, empty trash, police the parking lot for
cigarette butts and other debris, spend your time at the county landfill
sorting trash, refuse and recyclables... if you cant show up for work?
you cant get a check!

---

badchad said:

IMO the issue is arbitrarily selecting behaviors that are "good" or "bad".

What about cell phones or a car?  Can welfare recipients have those?  TV's?  What if a welfare mom wants to send the kid to private school etc?  Where do we draw the line?

The actions of private employers and whether or not they drug test are a different consideration.

---

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
that's why I support workfare, you want a government check, you need to
spend a required number of hours working your ass off cleaning up toilets
in public offices, sweep floor, empty trash, police the parking lot for
cigarette butts and other debris, spend your time at the county landfill
sorting trash, refuse and recyclables... if you cant show up for work?
you cant get a check!

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Larrythescaryrex said:

I think its fucked up that somebody that does drugs would take that stance. You really want some poor bitch to go without food stamps because some body felt sorry for her and smoked her out?

---

it helps her to prioritize, is her welfare check more important than a quick
high, is she willing to risk letting her kids go hungry because she wanted a
buzz... since it's typically someone abusing the system by using their
foodstamps to buy drugs, I think drug testing of welfare recipients and
members of congress should be mandatory, congress must be on drugs as is
evidenced by the shit they say every day

you go hank!

---

destructo_low said:

Prisoner#1 said:

that's why I support workfare, you want a government check, you need to
spend a required number of hours working your ass off cleaning up toilets
in public offices, sweep floor, empty trash, police the parking lot for
cigarette butts and other debris, spend your time at the county landfill
sorting trash, refuse and recyclables... if you cant show up for work?
you cant get a check!

---

Holy shit, Pris. I didn't even realize that existed. Why the fuck are they still doing the whole welfare thing? Get people out there sweeping the sidewalks or planting flowers . They should have them do community service for their check.

---

Larrythescaryrex said:

just because some one gets food stamps and got high, doesn't mean the food stamps were used to pay for the high... Aren't food stamps given in the form of debit card things that have to be used by the recipent?

---

Quote:

Anywhoo, my name isn't hank.

---

DieCommie said:

Its not a case of 'good' or 'bad', its a case of necessity and luxury.  If you can afford luxuries, then you arn't poor enough to warrant federal assistance for necessities.

---

DieCommie said:

A car is justifiable as it is a defacto necessity in our society.

---

badchad said:

DieCommie said:

Its not a case of 'good' or 'bad', its a case of necessity and luxury.  If you can afford luxuries, then you arn't poor enough to warrant federal assistance for necessities.

---

I certainly don't have all the answers, but the salient point is that when you place restrictions on welfare, someone has to decide on those restrictions, what they are, and whether they are reasonable.

What is a "luxury" and what is a "necessity".  A car?  nope.  Take the bus.  A cell phone is probably almost the same amount of money as a landline.  Should we deny someone the use of a phone?  What if they have an emergency?  What about obesity?  If you have enough money to over-indulge in food, why are you getting welfare?

The other issue to consider is the consequences of denying welfare.  Now people who need assistance can't get it.  Now what?  Let them starve?  Let them die?  Are they going to have to rob me to get by?  There is a great potential for adverse consequences.

---

Phychotron said:

welfare doesn't drug test because drug users are circumventing the law every day, a test would be a minor set back to some users, but otherwise would not phase the serious users.  How often are they suppose to test you? times that by the millions of people that need testing regularly and find someone who's willing to pay for all those tests. you won't make that cash up cutting off tweekers with a 3 day window for testing.

Also if it did work, Id claim discrimination because the group receiving aid would not model the actual population.  You exclude those American citizens for receiving aid while merely fitting into a society. 

but moreover, i think it would be considered a search, which they do not posess the power to do, and if they did the people would claim discrimination.

Every once in awhile this arguement comes up as the cure-all to poverty, like it's just going to solve everyone's problems--and yea, we all hate seeing that cracked out ho in the check-out, but it does nothing to address the greater problem: the social structure.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

destructo_low said:

Prisoner#1 said:

that's why I support workfare, you want a government check, you need to
spend a required number of hours working your ass off cleaning up toilets
in public offices, sweep floor, empty trash, police the parking lot for
cigarette butts and other debris, spend your time at the county landfill
sorting trash, refuse and recyclables... if you cant show up for work?
you cant get a check!

---

Holy shit, Pris. I didn't even realize that existed. Why the fuck are they still doing the whole welfare thing? Get people out there sweeping the sidewalks or planting flowers . They should have them do community service for their check.

---

because the liberals love to give away other people's money (zappisgod's money mostly)

---

Phychotron said:

welfare doesn't drug test because drug users are circumventing the law every day, a test would be a minor set back to some users, but otherwise would not phase the serious users.  How often are they suppose to test you? times that by the millions of people that need testing regularly and find someone who's willing to pay for all those tests. you won't make that cash up cutting off tweekers with a 3 day window for testing.

Also if it did work, Id claim discrimination because the group receiving aid would not model the actual population.  You exclude those American citizens for receiving aid while merely fitting into a society. 

but moreover, i think it would be considered a search, which they do not posess the power to do, and if they did the people would claim discrimination.

Every once in awhile this arguement comes up as the cure-all to poverty, like it's just going to solve everyone's problems--and yea, we all hate seeing that cracked out ho in the check-out, but it does nothing to address the greater problem: the social structure.

---

Phychotron said:

welfare doesn't drug test because drug users are circumventing the law every day, a test would be a minor set back to some users, but otherwise would not phase the serious users.

---

Quote:

How often are they suppose to test you? times that by the millions of people that need testing regularly and find someone who's willing to pay for all those tests. you won't make that cash up cutting off tweekers with a 3 day window for testing.

---

Quote:

Also if it did work, Id claim discrimination because the group receiving aid would not model the actual population.  You exclude those American citizens for receiving aid while merely fitting into a society. 

---

Quote:

very once in awhile this arguement comes up as the cure-all to poverty

---