D.T.W.A.

[spurgistan]

So, is everyone of the opinion/belief that drug testing only welfare recipients is discriminatory?


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=105#p3158968

I feel like I made a similar point a few posts after, only maybe angrier (no sleep)

Additionally, we're talking about a specific type of welfare here. I don't hear phatscotty or jimbo talking about the need to drug-test corporate welfare beneficiaries.

[Timminz]

I am going to assume that the people in favour of this law are also in favour of drug testing every employee, and every stakeholder at every company or organization that receives subsidies, tax breaks, or any other form of government assistance?

If they weren't, they would have argued my earlier post.

I agree with this... because I don't think there should be subsidies or gov't assistance.

Tax Breaks is tricky... because that's just "NOT" taking money, which is way different than giving money. One assumes (I do anyway) that in order to get a Tax Break you must be paying tax in the first place.

Tax breaks are absolutely a form of government assistance. It's the government saying, "Okay, according to the way things are set up, you owe $X in taxes, but we're going to give you a special discount because you're hiring unemployed people/you donated enough to my last election campaign/whatever other reason they offer tax breaks." The break puts extra money in the bank accounts of that company.

You're free to like or not like tax breaks, but to say they aren't government assistance is just ignorant.

[notyou2]

So, is everyone of the opinion/belief that drug testing only welfare recipients is discriminatory?


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=105#p3158968

It is absolutely discriminatory, and probably a case could be made that it is so on multiple levels. Socio-economic discrimination, possible racial discrimination, ethnic background discrimination, etc.

[keiths31]

Exactly. Welfare programs subsidize one's poverty. Welfare tends to provide many people with the incentive to not move from that particular financial bracket because then they lose the additional income + other benefits.

Listening to CBC Radio the other day, they were talking to an aboriginal leader from out west. They were talking about poverty and breaking the cycle of said poverty in regards to aboriginals and their reserve way of life. He said that "the quickest way to kill a man is to pay them to do nothing". I don't think it was an original quote, but it is one that weighs in heavily in the welfare debate. There is no incentive for some on welfare to get off when the government keeps giving them more money. Welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a crutch. There needs to be programs in place to entice people on welfare to get off and contribute to society.

In regards to this discussion, I don't think testing is the right way to go about it. If different governments are that worried about drug use amongst welfare recipients, then they can go with a voucher system for food, rent, childcare, etc. If they have less actual money then maybe hey won't spend as much on drugs.

The argument that it is "my money going to their drugs" is valid, but then you will have to ensure that all civil servants are tested as that is public money as well. Politicians, firemen, police and in Canada, doctors and nurses.

[Woodruff]

In regards to this discussion, I don't think testing is the right way to go about it. If different governments are that worried about drug use amongst welfare recipients, then they can go with a voucher system for food, rent, childcare, etc. If they have less actual money then maybe hey won't spend as much on drugs.

Well stated. I think the only problem to arise from that idea is "getting back change" from purchases at grocery stores and such, though possibly that could be overcome by the use of a debit card or something along those lines.

[Dukasaur]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption. One stupid person wastes his money on drugs, another on fortune tellers, a third on donations to televangelists, another on cosmetics and designer jeans, another on idiotic "must-have" gadgets. Most of the welfare people that I've known keep themselves mired in poverty by the simple (and perfectly legal) expedient of eating take-out food instead of cooking. Will you monitor that too? What difference does it make? All of the above are equally wasteful sinkholes.

Why should you cut someone off welfare for spending all his money on drugs and not if he's spending all his money on phone sex? The fact is, you can't monitor every idiotic thing people waste money on, and singling out one particular item is ridiculous.

Now, the entire idea of welfare might be a bad idea. I won't challenge that, but that's a separate debate entirely. If you accept that you should give people money, at least get out of their way and let them waste it on whatever they want.

[Dukasaur]

In regards to this discussion, I don't think testing is the right way to go about it. If different governments are that worried about drug use amongst welfare recipients, then they can go with a voucher system for food, rent, childcare, etc. If they have less actual money then maybe hey won't spend as much on drugs.

Well stated. I think the only problem to arise from that idea is "getting back change" from purchases at grocery stores and such, though possibly that could be overcome by the use of a debit card or something along those lines.

Wow, Woodruff has returned!

Welcome back!

[PLAYER57832]

In regards to this discussion, I don't think testing is the right way to go about it. If different governments are that worried about drug use amongst welfare recipients, then they can go with a voucher system for food, rent, childcare, etc. If they have less actual money then maybe hey won't spend as much on drugs.

Well stated. I think the only problem to arise from that idea is "getting back change" from purchases at grocery stores and such, though possibly that could be overcome by the use of a debit card or something along those lines.

In PA all such benefits are added to a kind of debit card.

I would also require people who have been on assistance to have to save money, rather than always penalizing them for being thrifty. I would also require some money they earn to be paid back (slowly, of course). One classic case of self-defeatism of welfare comes with vehicles and rural US. In a lot of rural areas, you plain cannot get a job if you cannot drive. Yet, for a long time, simply having a car would disqualify you from many benefits. That meant people who had relatively inexpensive housing, where they were able to grow food, got well water, etc,. would often have to move to a town where everything was more expensive.

Per the drugs.. the real question is why people go on drugs to begin with. If you want to stop drugs, you have to change that reason, have to make it better to be off than on. I know Phatscotty and such believe that mere physical discomfort will work, but if you look at the lives of addicts, you see that doesn't happen. You find them living under bridges, abadoning their families, etc.

[Metsfanmax]

Why is it that none of you who are in support of this legislation are responding to this point I've made a few times. How do you guys not see this as a problem?:

I guess as long as it's lining the pockets of Tea Partiers, then it's ok. Is it a problem that the guy pushing the legislation is a significant owner of the freaking drug-testing laboratories? Yes, you read that right.

Oh wait, he transferred his part in the ownership of the franchise to...his wife. Yes, that's right...no conflict of interest since now he's moved it to his wife. Is there NO shame? Well...no, not really, since Governor Scott has a history of legal problems as his previous business was found guilty of 14 felonies.

And the Tea Party loves him.

I'm not sure how I feel about the philosophy behind this legislation, but I do know that whether it's good or bad has nothing to do with whether Rick Scott is good or bad.

So you find nothing at all wrong with a legislator pushing legislation designed to specifically line his own pockets? I'm surprised by that.

I didn't say I find nothing wrong with it. I said that this line of argumentation belongs in a Rick Scott bad thread, not a thread about whether drug addicts should receive welfare.

[keiths31]

In regards to this discussion, I don't think testing is the right way to go about it. If different governments are that worried about drug use amongst welfare recipients, then they can go with a voucher system for food, rent, childcare, etc. If they have less actual money then maybe hey won't spend as much on drugs.

Well stated. I think the only problem to arise from that idea is "getting back change" from purchases at grocery stores and such, though possibly that could be overcome by the use of a debit card or something along those lines.

There has to be a better way. I remember when I was 19. I was in college, working one of my two jobs to pay for school as my parents couldn't afford to send me. I also lived on my own. Anyway I was working when a man ordered a coffee. He sat down nd drank it. He then came back up and asked me to sign his sheet for him. In Ontario if you are on welfare and are phsyically able to work you have to be activly looking. I read his sheet and it said I was to sign if he dropped off a resume or filled iin an application. I asked if he had a resume. He did not. I told hime he could fill out an application and then I would sign it. He said "come on, do me a favour". I told him I would sign it if he filled out an application. He then started yelling at me saying he was going to kick my ass. He was going to wait for the store to close and come and get me. So because I didn't do him a favour I got threatened.
Now this incident really changed my view on things. Here I was working two jobs to support myself and go to college and this guy had no intention on getting a job or going to college even though he was elligiable for free post secondary schooling. I quoted earlier "the quickest way to kill a man is to pay him to do nothing" and that applied to this man. He had no intentions of improving himself or his situation.

t

[BigBallinStalin]

In regards to this discussion, I don't think testing is the right way to go about it. If different governments are that worried about drug use amongst welfare recipients, then they can go with a voucher system for food, rent, childcare, etc. If they have less actual money then maybe hey won't spend as much on drugs.

Well stated. I think the only problem to arise from that idea is "getting back change" from purchases at grocery stores and such, though possibly that could be overcome by the use of a debit card or something along those lines.

There has to be a better way. I remember when I was 19. I was in college, working one of my two jobs to pay for school as my parents couldn't afford to send me. I also lived on my own. Anyway I was working when a man ordered a coffee. He sat down nd drank it. He then came back up and asked me to sign his sheet for him. In Ontario if you are on welfare and are phsyically able to work you have to be activly looking. I read his sheet and it said I was to sign if he dropped off a resume or filled iin an application. I asked if he had a resume. He did not. I told hime he could fill out an application and then I would sign it. He said "come on, do me a favour". I told him I would sign it if he filled out an application. He then started yelling at me saying he was going to kick my ass. He was going to wait for the store to close and come and get me. So because I didn't do him a favour I got threatened.
Now this incident really changed my view on things. Here I was working two jobs to support myself and go to college and this guy had no intention on getting a job or going to college even though he was elligiable for free post secondary schooling. I quoted earlier "the quickest way to kill a man is to pay him to do nothing" and that applied to this man. He had no intentions of improving himself or his situation.

t

Exactly. Incentives matter.

Welfare subsidizes poverty, which in turn worsens the problem in the long-run--especially since those of poor socio-economic background are provided the incentive of having more kids.

[PLAYER57832]

In regards to this discussion, I don't think testing is the right way to go about it. If different governments are that worried about drug use amongst welfare recipients, then they can go with a voucher system for food, rent, childcare, etc. If they have less actual money then maybe hey won't spend as much on drugs.

Well stated. I think the only problem to arise from that idea is "getting back change" from purchases at grocery stores and such, though possibly that could be overcome by the use of a debit card or something along those lines.

There has to be a better way. I remember when I was 19. I was in college, working one of my two jobs to pay for school as my parents couldn't afford to send me. I also lived on my own. Anyway I was working when a man ordered a coffee. He sat down nd drank it. He then came back up and asked me to sign his sheet for him. In Ontario if you are on welfare and are phsyically able to work you have to be activly looking. I read his sheet and it said I was to sign if he dropped off a resume or filled iin an application. I asked if he had a resume. He did not. I told hime he could fill out an application and then I would sign it. He said "come on, do me a favour". I told him I would sign it if he filled out an application. He then started yelling at me saying he was going to kick my ass. He was going to wait for the store to close and come and get me. So because I didn't do him a favour I got threatened.
Now this incident really changed my view on things. Here I was working two jobs to support myself and go to college and this guy had no intention on getting a job or going to college even though he was elligiable for free post secondary schooling. I quoted earlier "the quickest way to kill a man is to pay him to do nothing" and that applied to this man. He had no intentions of improving himself or his situation.

t

Exactly. Incentives matter.

Welfare subsidizes poverty, which in turn worsens the problem in the long-run--especially since those of poor socio-economic background are provided the incentive of having more kids.

The problem is how welfare is structured. The problem is that programs which truly move people out of welfare cost far more than simply passing out supplemental payments.

We are seeing more and more people sliding into the welfare type ranks with the current economy, but the truth is that those above and those below are not equivalent. Most people on welfare don't have the ready skills to get them jobs. You can label them "lazy" ,and of course a lot are, but that rather sidesteps the fact that even for the lazy individuals, there are real and true barriers that have to be fixed.

[Woodruff]

Why is it that none of you who are in support of this legislation are responding to this point I've made a few times. How do you guys not see this as a problem?:

I guess as long as it's lining the pockets of Tea Partiers, then it's ok. Is it a problem that the guy pushing the legislation is a significant owner of the freaking drug-testing laboratories? Yes, you read that right.

Oh wait, he transferred his part in the ownership of the franchise to...his wife. Yes, that's right...no conflict of interest since now he's moved it to his wife. Is there NO shame? Well...no, not really, since Governor Scott has a history of legal problems as his previous business was found guilty of 14 felonies.

And the Tea Party loves him.

I'm not sure how I feel about the philosophy behind this legislation, but I do know that whether it's good or bad has nothing to do with whether Rick Scott is good or bad.

So you find nothing at all wrong with a legislator pushing legislation designed to specifically line his own pockets? I'm surprised by that.

I didn't say I find nothing wrong with it. I said that this line of argumentation belongs in a Rick Scott bad thread, not a thread about whether drug addicts should receive welfare.

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

[john9blue]

why did nobody reply to dukasaur? he makes an excellent point.

i guess people only reply to things they disagree with. lol

[natty dread]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption. One stupid person wastes his money on drugs, another on fortune tellers, a third on donations to televangelists, another on cosmetics and designer jeans, another on idiotic "must-have" gadgets. Most of the welfare people that I've known keep themselves mired in poverty by the simple (and perfectly legal) expedient of eating take-out food instead of cooking. Will you monitor that too? What difference does it make? All of the above are equally wasteful sinkholes.

Why should you cut someone off welfare for spending all his money on drugs and not if he's spending all his money on phone sex? The fact is, you can't monitor every idiotic thing people waste money on, and singling out one particular item is ridiculous.

Now, the entire idea of welfare might be a bad idea. I won't challenge that, but that's a separate debate entirely. If you accept that you should give people money, at least get out of their way and let them waste it on whatever they want.

Agreed.

[Night Strike]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption. One stupid person wastes his money on drugs, another on fortune tellers, a third on donations to televangelists, another on cosmetics and designer jeans, another on idiotic "must-have" gadgets. Most of the welfare people that I've known keep themselves mired in poverty by the simple (and perfectly legal) expedient of eating take-out food instead of cooking. Will you monitor that too? What difference does it make? All of the above are equally wasteful sinkholes.

Why should you cut someone off welfare for spending all his money on drugs and not if he's spending all his money on phone sex? The fact is, you can't monitor every idiotic thing people waste money on, and singling out one particular item is ridiculous.

Now, the entire idea of welfare might be a bad idea. I won't challenge that, but that's a separate debate entirely. If you accept that you should give people money, at least get out of their way and let them waste it on whatever they want.

Although I agree with the theory behind your point, the reason why the other activities wouldn't be cut off is because they aren't illegal. It's illegal to possess and consume drugs, which is why those who get caught or test positive should lose their handout. I agree that they shouldn't be wasting that money on those other activities/items, but those are legal under normal circumstances. It's also why this action is NOT discriminatory: it's just another way to enforce laws that are already on the books. It not singling out a specific group of people and prohibiting them from exercising the freedoms other people have.

[Phatscotty]

Where is BBS when we need him

Phatscotty is digging himself into this hole, which is getting....

Deeper and deeper... Way WAY down.

HAHA no that was just for Player cuz yer the only person who will give her your time

[Phatscotty]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption.

and you may challenge it, so long as you acknowledge this money is not earned by the one who is blowing it. This is public money that has been taken from someone else, in the name of "helping"....

The people who the money is taken from demand accountability.

[natty dread]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption.

and you may challenge it, so long as you acknowledge this money is not earned by the one who is blowing it. This is public money that has been taken from someone else, in the name of "helping"....

The people who the money is taken from demand accountability.

You're probably the kind of guy who yells at police officers when they pull you over for speeding, "Shove that ticket - I pay your salary!"

[Night Strike]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption.

and you may challenge it, so long as you acknowledge this money is not earned by the one who is blowing it. This is public money that has been taken from someone else, in the name of "helping"....

The people who the money is taken from demand accountability.

You're probably the kind of guy who yells at police officers when they pull you over for speeding, "Shove that ticket - I pay your salary!"

How is that in any way related to this situation?

[Phatscotty]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption.

and you may challenge it, so long as you acknowledge this money is not earned by the one who is blowing it. This is public money that has been taken from someone else, in the name of "helping"....

The people who the money is taken from demand accountability.

You're probably the kind of guy who yells at police officers when they pull you over for speeding, "Shove that ticket - I pay your salary!"

what's with all the excuses?

Actually its' "Hello sir"

All you are trying to do is take away the representation of those who are taxed.

[natty dread]

Although I agree with the theory behind your point, the reason why the other activities wouldn't be cut off is because they aren't illegal.

Oh, now it's because it's illegal? I wish you'd make up your mind on your justifications for oppressing the people who are less fortunate than you.

You want to talk about wasting taxpayes' money? How about, persecuting drug users whose only crime is that they like smoking a joint (which is relatively harmless) more than drinking alcohol (which is addictive and destroys your liver). Spending billions of taxpayer money in prosecuting & jailing people whose only crime is using drugs that are less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes.

[Phatscotty]

Although I agree with the theory behind your point, the reason why the other activities wouldn't be cut off is because they aren't illegal.

Oh, now it's because it's illegal? I wish you'd make up your mind on your justifications for oppressing the people who are less fortunate than you.

You want to talk about wasting taxpayes' money? How about, persecuting drug users whose only crime is that they like smoking a joint (which is relatively harmless) more than drinking alcohol (which is addictive and destroys your liver). Spending billions of taxpayer money in prosecuting & jailing people whose only crime is using drugs that are less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes.

how about all wasting of taxpayers money is fair game?

or is it still "taxpayer stfu"

[natty dread]

So, why are you, Phatscotty, not campaigning for ending the war on drugs? It's wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money without accomplishing anything at all (except ruining the lives of many good people).

[Phatscotty]

So, why are you, Phatscotty, not campaigning for ending the war on drugs? It's wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money without accomplishing anything at all (except ruining the lives of many good people).

How many threads should I reference on that? I'm all about ending the war on drugs. (part of ending that war is lessening demand)That does not mean drugs do not destroy lives, especially the lives of those with little or no hope....

Why can't you see that I am all for the money we give to help people......actually go to helping people?