Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not? It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.
no, it is not.
It's NOT? You sure you don't want to re-think that statement?
Of course it isn't. The primary concern of welfare is to help people. Worrying about a presumption or how something might look is much, MUCH further down on the list.
None of that is relevant in any way to your very dumb statement that drug testing those on welfare is not a legal form of discrimination. Did you have something that was relevant?
(You do realize that "discrimination" doesn't always mean illegal, right?)
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not? It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.
no, it is not.
It's NOT? You sure you don't want to re-think that statement?
Of course it isn't. The primary concern of welfare is to help people. Worrying about a presumption or how something might look is much, MUCH further down on the list.
None of that is relevant in any way to your very dumb statement that drug testing those on welfare is not a legal form of discrimination. Did you have something that was relevant?
(You do realize that "discrimination" doesn't always mean illegal, right?)
Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not? It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.
no, it is not.
It's NOT? You sure you don't want to re-think that statement?
Of course it isn't. The primary concern of welfare is to help people. Worrying about a presumption or how something might look is much, MUCH further down on the list.
None of that is relevant in any way to your very dumb statement that drug testing those on welfare is not a legal form of discrimination. Did you have something that was relevant?
(You do realize that "discrimination" doesn't always mean illegal, right?)
Man you are just a stick in the mudd! IT'S NOT!
Do you understand the concept of what discrimination is, Phatscotty? Perhaps if you could define it for me, I'll understand why we're not seeing eye to eye here.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, Woodruff. I understand what discrimination is
I don't see a definition there. Were you just going to try to ignore it and hope it goes away?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, Woodruff. I understand what discrimination is
I don't see a definition there. Were you just going to try to ignore it and hope it goes away?
Well, for one thing, I never brought up or talked about discrimination. I was in the middle of talking to Juan, and then you waltz into the convo and throw a curve-ball, like always. Honestly, I don't even really know what you are talking about. However, chasing me around demanding a definition of discrimination is silly and you aren't going to get me to waste time on that, but I have an idea. Just cut the bullshit man!
Let's just do something crazy here, I mean f'n NUTZ! You ready for the craziness? Check this out. How about you just give me the benefit of the doubt, that I do indeed know what discrimination is. Okay?
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, Woodruff. I understand what discrimination is
I don't see a definition there. Were you just going to try to ignore it and hope it goes away?
Well, for one thing, I never brought up or talked about discrimination. I was in the middle of talking to Juan, and then you waltz into the convo and throw a curve-ball, like always. Honestly, I don't even really know what you are talking about. However, chasing me around demanding a definition of discrimination is silly and you aren't going to get me to waste time on that, but I have an idea. Just cut the bullshit man!
Let's just do something crazy here, I mean f'n NUTZ! You ready for the craziness? Check this out. How about you just give me the benefit of the doubt, that I do indeed know what discrimination is. Okay?
So......what's your point?
My point, as you very well know, is that you explicitly stated that drug testing welfare recipients was not "legal discrimination" and I'm pointing out what a stupid thing that is to say. Why do you spend so much time trying to avoid your own words, Phatscotty? Wouldn't it be easier for you to just not say the stupid stuff? Then again, you seem to take great joy in compounding the stupid things you say with even more stupid defenses of those stupid things you say.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, Woodruff. I understand what discrimination is
I don't see a definition there. Were you just going to try to ignore it and hope it goes away?
Well, for one thing, I never brought up or talked about discrimination. I was in the middle of talking to Juan, and then you waltz into the convo and throw a curve-ball, like always. Honestly, I don't even really know what you are talking about. However, chasing me around demanding a definition of discrimination is silly and you aren't going to get me to waste time on that, but I have an idea. Just cut the bullshit man!
Let's just do something crazy here, I mean f'n NUTZ! You ready for the craziness? Check this out. How about you just give me the benefit of the doubt, that I do indeed know what discrimination is. Okay?
So......what's your point?
My point, as you very well know, is that you explicitly stated that drug testing welfare recipients was not "legal discrimination" and I'm pointing out what a stupid thing that is to say. Why do you spend so much time trying to avoid your own words, Phatscotty? Wouldn't it be easier for you to just not say the stupid stuff? Then again, you seem to take great joy in compounding the stupid things you say with even more stupid defenses of those stupid things you say.
You are gonna have to show me where I said that. That statement does not reflect my opinion. Here is a statement that does, just to be clear...
My opinion is that the state drug testing a welfare applicant is about as discriminatory as a bank doing a credit check on a loan applicant.
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, Woodruff. I understand what discrimination is
I don't see a definition there. Were you just going to try to ignore it and hope it goes away?
Well, for one thing, I never brought up or talked about discrimination. I was in the middle of talking to Juan, and then you waltz into the convo and throw a curve-ball, like always. Honestly, I don't even really know what you are talking about. However, chasing me around demanding a definition of discrimination is silly and you aren't going to get me to waste time on that, but I have an idea. Just cut the bullshit man!
Let's just do something crazy here, I mean f'n NUTZ! You ready for the craziness? Check this out. How about you just give me the benefit of the doubt, that I do indeed know what discrimination is. Okay?
So......what's your point?
My point, as you very well know, is that you explicitly stated that drug testing welfare recipients was not "legal discrimination" and I'm pointing out what a stupid thing that is to say. Why do you spend so much time trying to avoid your own words, Phatscotty? Wouldn't it be easier for you to just not say the stupid stuff? Then again, you seem to take great joy in compounding the stupid things you say with even more stupid defenses of those stupid things you say.
You are gonna have to show me where I said that.
That's simple enough:
Phatscotty wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not? It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.
no, it is not.
The main point is not what people think, or what might be presumed, or how it might seem to some. Those are not things that dictate how a policy is incorporated. They should be considered, but you seem to make that your end all be all.
So, you explicitly stated that "no, it is not" a legal form of discrimination.
Phatscotty wrote:That statement does not reflect my opinion.
Then you shouldn't make statements that go against your opinion.
Phatscotty wrote:Here is a statement that does, just to be clear... My opinion is that the state drug testing a welfare applicant is about as discriminatory as a bank doing a credit check on a loan applicant.
You don't believe that legal discrimination is used by banks in determining loan applicant qualifications?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, Woodruff. I understand what discrimination is
I don't see a definition there. Were you just going to try to ignore it and hope it goes away?
Well, for one thing, I never brought up or talked about discrimination. I was in the middle of talking to Juan, and then you waltz into the convo and throw a curve-ball, like always. Honestly, I don't even really know what you are talking about. However, chasing me around demanding a definition of discrimination is silly and you aren't going to get me to waste time on that, but I have an idea. Just cut the bullshit man!
Let's just do something crazy here, I mean f'n NUTZ! You ready for the craziness? Check this out. How about you just give me the benefit of the doubt, that I do indeed know what discrimination is. Okay?
So......what's your point?
My point, as you very well know, is that you explicitly stated that drug testing welfare recipients was not "legal discrimination" and I'm pointing out what a stupid thing that is to say. Why do you spend so much time trying to avoid your own words, Phatscotty? Wouldn't it be easier for you to just not say the stupid stuff? Then again, you seem to take great joy in compounding the stupid things you say with even more stupid defenses of those stupid things you say.
You are gonna have to show me where I said that.
That's simple enough:
Phatscotty wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not? It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.
no, it is not.
The main point is not what people think, or what might be presumed, or how it might seem to some. Those are not things that dictate how a policy is incorporated. They should be considered, but you seem to make that your end all be all.
So, you explicitly stated that "no, it is not" a legal form of discrimination.
Phatscotty wrote:Well, for one thing, I never brought up or talked about discrimination. I was in the middle of talking to Juan, and then you waltz into the convo and throw a curve-ball, like always. Honestly, I don't even really know what you are talking about. However, chasing me around demanding a definition of discrimination is silly and you aren't going to get me to waste time on that, but I have an idea. Just cut the bullshit man!
Let's just do something crazy here, I mean f'n NUTZ! You ready for the craziness? Check this out. How about you just give me the benefit of the doubt, that I do indeed know what discrimination is. Okay?
So......what's your point?
My point, as you very well know, is that you explicitly stated that drug testing welfare recipients was not "legal discrimination" and I'm pointing out what a stupid thing that is to say. Why do you spend so much time trying to avoid your own words, Phatscotty? Wouldn't it be easier for you to just not say the stupid stuff? Then again, you seem to take great joy in compounding the stupid things you say with even more stupid defenses of those stupid things you say.
You are gonna have to show me where I said that.
That's simple enough:
Phatscotty wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not? It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.
no, it is not.
The main point is not what people think, or what might be presumed, or how it might seem to some. Those are not things that dictate how a policy is incorporated. They should be considered, but you seem to make that your end all be all.
So, you explicitly stated that "no, it is not" a legal form of discrimination.
WTF are you smokin?????
I really don't understand why you run from your own words so often.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:...and I understand exactly why you twist other peoples words so often....
I didn't twist anything. In fact, I quoted you exactly. I didn't even cut out anything from the quote. Stop running, Phatscotty.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:...and I understand exactly why you twist other peoples words so often....
I didn't twist anything. In fact, I quoted you exactly. I didn't even cut out anything from the quote. Stop running, Phatscotty.
Why don't you just accept that I do not agree with what you are saying
You don't agree that you said what I quoted you saying? Stop running, Phatscotty.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
PLAYER57832 wrote:This covers a big part of it.. first why the program you mentioned was struck down and the far better alternative of interviewing (just as one suggestion... though I believe woodruff mentioned this earlier). Oh, and note the $400 price tag for full tests, not the $14 you quoted earlier.: link:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510707,00.html
The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.
But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.
Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.
They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.
and the above is from FOX, so hardly a left wing liberal story.
Woody says they cost 55$ in FL, but I know here in MN a basic drug test kit is 14$.
Finally at least someone contributed something. TY player
The test the Florida legislator advocated would cost $55.
I earlier googled and found a range of tests. The ones for $14 ONLY test for marihuana.. the least dangerous. Ironically, though as noted above, because it stays in the system longer than other drugs, people who take that are more likely to be caught than users of hard drugs. Yet, it is really the hard drug users who cause the problem.
Also, as noted earlier this does nothing about alchoholics, and they absolutely cause serious problems.
since the ACLU article is a tad old, I have been looking for more recent information on New York to see it they did pass another law.
here is what I found: link:http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/new_york_legislators_make_peop.html article basically covers the same bit as already mentioned. here is an excerpt.
The Upstate lawmakers are targeting people on programs for the poor, like welfare — a family of four in Onondaga County gets $851 a month in assistance — while ignoring other recipients of government subsidies, like business owners who get millions of dollars in tax credits.
Critics say there’s little evidence people getting government help with social programs are more likely to use drugs.
“I would even call it mean-spirited and unsound at a time of fiscal crisis,” said Barrie Gewanter, director of the Central New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit in Michigan.
Under Senate Bill 174, if a person on public assistance tests positive for illegal drugs, he or she would be required to undergo drug treatment. The bill says only that the fiscal implications are "to be determined."
note that the NY bill is different from the Florida one.
Well, 3 years later, here is the new Michigan law just signed in the last 24 hours.
Michigan's Rick Snyder signs welfare drug-testing bills
LANSING — Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation Friday that creates a drug-testing program for adult welfare recipients who are suspected of using drugs. The one-year pilot program will be implemented in three counties that have not yet been determined.
Under the program, welfare recipients or applicants suspected of drug use will be required to take a substance abuse test. Refusal to take the test will result in being ineligible for benefits for six months.
A positive drug test would lead to referrals to treatment programs. If an individual refuses to participate in the program or fails to submit to periodic substance abuse testing required under the program, their assistance will be terminated. Benefits can be restored after a person passes a substance abuse test.
"We want to remove the barriers that are keeping people from getting good jobs, supporting their families and living independently," Snyder said in a press release. "This pilot program is intended to help ensure recipients get the wrap-around services they need to overcome drug addiction and lead successful lives. We'll then have opportunity to assess effectiveness and outcomes."
Opponents of the legislation, including the Michigan League for Public Policy, have said similar programs in other states haven't saved taxpayers money. The nonpartisan Senate Fiscal Agency estimated a statewide program would cost roughly $700,000 to $3.4 million, while potentially saving $370,000 to $3.7 million in caseload reductions.
The American Civil Liberties Union has said the program would promote ugly stereotypes of poor people and discriminate against a group that doesn't use drugs at a rate significantly higher than the general population.
"We give out tax credits to schools, we give out tax credits to students, we give out tax credits to police and fire (departments)," Sen. Vincent Gregory, D-Southfield, said earlier this year on the Senate floor. "And yet the only (group) that we are now saying is subject to drug screening are the poor — the poorest of the poor."
I'll just share this and let it stand on it's own, except for the last paragraph there.
Yes, we give taxpayers money to schools, to maintain the schools and their budgets. Imagine if a school turned around and used that school money on ice cream and potato chips, and didn't spend it on maintaining the school. The state would demand their money back and likely not give that school any more money on the next round. Yes, we give students taxpayers money, for their tuition. Imagine if students turned around and used that money to buy shiny rims and loud speakers for their cars, and didn't spend it on tuition. The state would demand their money back and likely not give that student any more money for tuition again. Yes, we give taxpayers money to police and fire to keep them operating for the safety of the community. Imagine if the one of the police n fire units turned around and used that money to build a roller skating rink instead, and did not spend the money on their operations. The state would demand their money back and likely not give that unit any more money on the next round.
Yes, we give 'the poorest of the poor' taxpayers money so they can eat and have shelter. Imagine (or just drive through the dangerous parts of your inner cities at 4am in the first of any month) if a poor person turned around and used that lump sum of money to stay up smoking crack the next 4 days, and then did not use the money for it's intended purpose of us helping them to get shelter and food. This is no different. That person may need help with food and shelter, but the help we give them does not help them get food and shelter at all...it helps them get crack and helps load the pockets of a slimy crack dealer to drop $20's in the strippers panties and lose their money at high roller gambling tables, and when they lose all the cash they still have stacks of food stamp cards to sell 2 for 1's.
A person like that needs a different kind of help, and our intentions of helping them is actually enabling them and hurting them. Wouldn't you agree?
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, we give 'the poorest of the poor' taxpayers money so they can eat and have shelter. Imagine (or just drive through the dangerous parts of your inner cities at 4am in the first of any month) if a poor person turned around and used that lump sum of money to stay up smoking crack the next 4 days, and then did not use the money for it's intended purpose of us helping them to get shelter and food. This is no different. That person may need help with food and shelter, but the help we give them does not help them get food and shelter at all...it helps them get crack and helps load the pockets of a slimy crack dealer to drop $20's in the strippers panties and lose their money at high roller gambling tables, and when they lose all the cash they still have stacks of food stamp cards to sell 2 for 1's.
A person like that needs a different kind of help, wouldn't you agree?
Nope. If a man's life is shit, I'll let him be the judge of whether he's better off buying some food and easing the pain in his stomach, or buying some mescaline and easing the pain in his soul. He might not make the same choices that I'd make, but I'll allow him the dignity of making them for himself.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, we give 'the poorest of the poor' taxpayers money so they can eat and have shelter. Imagine (or just drive through the dangerous parts of your inner cities at 4am in the first of any month) if a poor person turned around and used that lump sum of money to stay up smoking crack the next 4 days, and then did not use the money for it's intended purpose of us helping them to get shelter and food. This is no different. That person may need help with food and shelter, but the help we give them does not help them get food and shelter at all...it helps them get crack and helps load the pockets of a slimy crack dealer to drop $20's in the strippers panties and lose their money at high roller gambling tables, and when they lose all the cash they still have stacks of food stamp cards to sell 2 for 1's.
A person like that needs a different kind of help, wouldn't you agree?
Nope. If a man's life is shit, I'll let him be the judge of whether he's better off buying some food and easing the pain in his stomach, or buying some mescaline and easing the pain in his soul. He might not make the same choices that I'd make, but I'll allow him the dignity of making them for himself.
That's fine, I get that to a certain extent. Something I most likely have said in the past, while talking about someone having the freedom to chose how to spend 'their own' money. But why can't I be the judge of my money as well? What about the dignity of the taxpayer? What about the integrity of the system, and the pain in the souls of millions of taxpayers who bust their humps day in and day out, who have good reason to claim that it's not right to take their money and give it to someone else that ends up being spent on drugs/gambling/cigarettes ie non-essentials. The pain that comes with working all the time, barely being able to make ends meet, and while you are pinchin your pennies ya see someone in front of you at the gas station 'get for free' a huge bag of beef jerky, a case of soda, a couple candy bars, and then pull out some cash for cigs and some lottery tickets, and they don't even have to look at prices.
It's like making the case that while almost all of us get it that we need a military, and we are okay with our tax dollars going to fund defense. However, we think some of the things our drones do is flat out wrong, we think the wars we are in were based on lies, and we are understandably angry about it. Granted this is not a state level thing where we have our laboratories of Democracy, welfare and food stamps are state level and we have a say one way or the other or any way we want to.
I don't mind helping hungry people, I mind someone lying about being hungry/lying about the need for food money, and I mind that the help we give that is supposed to go to feed a hungry person instead allows an adddict to continue their habit. It's like we are helping him avoid hitting rock bottom for him or his life. Someone with these kind of problems needs to hit rock bottom, otherwise they will STAY down, the complete opposite of what we are trying to do in the first place. I mind that what is supposed to help the person in your example may very well ruin this man permanently, possibly even kill him.
