Welfare recipients to be drug tested

The point was how many S&P CEOs are too lazy to go to work or being required to take a drug test, even when they apply for corporate welfare which may include a bonus?

 

Good for FL to give this a whirl. I am sure it has to be fine tuned as time goes on, but at least they recognized a problem, and are trying to fix it. I am sure most of us also recognize that we are talking about the able, not those with mental and physical disabilities, even though I know plenty who made 'faking it' a career.
Its a choice everyone has to make. Take it or leave it.
When I hired on, I was drug tested, and am subject to random testing. It was my choice to take the job or look for different employment.
I find it a bit hypocritical, to say the least, that employed people are subject to testing, while providing tax revenue for those who receive aid from said tax dollars without having to undergo the same scrutiny.
When folks fall on hard times, can't one ask for a little gesture of good will?
Why the free ride, no questions asked? Why make it a career? At least try, please, try to stay clean and sober, make an effort. If all one has to do is stay drug free, that's not too much to ask for the monthly check, is it?
Sometimes I'm not sure who's worse, the unwilling or the enablers.

 

Actually, Catch, it won't be the State. It will be the taxpayers. You know, those suckers who aren't on welfare.

 

DanielPalos: "Is there anyone who would like to cite campaign contributions for those elected representatives who advocate bearing false witness to our own federal Constitution by denying and disparaging individual liberty without any just Cause or rational philosophy or excuse?"

What crap. Do you have a vested interest in continuing welfare checks to junkies?

 

I am not sure they are recognizing the "problem" at all. How does drug testing solve for a natural unemployment rate? The problem, is official poverty, not drugs.

 

Politicians usually pander to their constituencies. I was merely wondering why the emphasis in more government spending during times of massive deficits (which also has the effect of denying and disparaging individual liberty) rather than more free market based opportunties which rely on mutually beneficial social transactions which can result in an improvement in the standard of living of the market participants involved.

 

No, the problem is that many of us who pay taxes don't want to support deadbeats doing drugs. It has nothing to do with a "natural" unemployment rate.

And the emphasis isn't on more government spending, obviously. The emphasis, for some, is not supporting deadbeats on drugs. And since when does a liberal obejct to more government spending? It's what they live for.

 

Drugs make people less productive. Drugs take money out of the community. Drugs make people spend less on other things. Drugs are a major cause of criminal activity (not limited just to dealing) which requires more police which raises taxes. Do you think this doesn't result in less jobs?

 

Why would I want to smoke man made chemicals instead of a plant?

 

the effect (high) is the same - and they both do damage.

In any case, the THC content of marijuana has been enhanced over the last thirty years or so to such an extent that it is also largely "man made."

I have no illusions about marijuana. I have seen way too many people whose lives have been adversely affected by the use of this "harmless" weed.

 

Your misconception is that their lives would have been better without marijuana. In reality, their lives would have been better without laws that criminalize marijuana.

 

They'd be better off without both.

 

Do you feel like that is your decision to make?

 

It's not my decision to decide what they do, but they'd be healthier and more productive without it. If they feel better off not being those things, good for them.

 

I started using marijuana very early in life to treat my epilepsy. It was cheaper than the prescription drugs and had a lot less side effects. It's funny you feel that way when I feel that marijuana is what allows me to be a healthier and more productive member of society.

 

where I live, the penalties on marijuana use are very different from where you are, in fact possession of small quantities for personal use is not a criminal offence.

there is plenty of evidence supporting that marijuana use can have mental health implications, as well as other problems..

http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/marijuana

long term impacts can seriously affect a person's life.

 

You are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of marijuana smokers don't do it to treat a condition and be more productive.

 

good! if they can afford pot they can afford to buy their own muth(*)(*)(*)(*)ing twinkies!

 

drug tests are super cheap on a mass level when averaged out. the test strips for the pee-liminary test is like a nickle a piece. the jar literally costs more. it's when something shows on the test strip that it goes for the more accurate testing. the real expensive part is the shipping. FedEx isn't cheap, and i suspect it was the majority of the $25 i was charged at the clinic for the last DOT pre-employment drug screening i had pay for out of pocket...but that was 8 years ago.

$25 bucks is super cheap to keep the people that can afford drugs the least from using them.

 

I am an exception to the rule. There are many like me. The laws would have us thrown in jail. Politicians point to polls where people like you voice their opinion based on absolutes that aren't true.

All research on successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased, and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing.

The mindset of "it doesn't affect me so I don't care" allows crooked police and government officials to steal from otherwise law abiding citizens.

Thanks.

 

Discussing marijuana with a born-again is like discussing religion with a Jehovah's Witness. Pointless. They have their faith and when faith and realism collide, faith always wins.

 

No, but most seem to think they are treating a condition and are being more productive, oh, and creative, for sure, oh, and insightful and intuitive. And drunks are convinced they can drive better after a few beers, too.

 

Not always. Many of us realize that you can't legislate moral values and/or common sense.
The good Lord Himself gave us free will. So be it.

 

Would they still be deadbeats if they had an income? Would it matter if they did drugs if they persue Happiness with that income? Full employment in the market for labor can solve the dilemma you present. Testing for drugs will not.

I object to any government spending which does not provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

anyone know the answer to this?
if ones is on welfare/unemployment and is required to show proof of attempting to find a job but cant get hired because of failure of drug test, can the recipient still receive funds for attempting to find a job or does his/her failure of the drug test void them?