More Than $1M On Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients

[dainthomas]

Horseshit thread is horseshit.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/1...-is-a-sham-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/



They have an easy way to avoid being tested; don't ask the state for gimme dats. Which many did:



I DEMAND FREE MONEY WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED. MUH RIGHTS.

It's possible that people frequenting thrift stores and food pantries for basic necessities don't have the money to front for tests and wait however long for reimbursement. So they basically got kicked off welfare for no reason at all.

As others have said, the policy's only purpose is to demonize a group of people in order to reinforce righty talking points.

 

[berzerker60]

Horseshit thread is horseshit.

They have an easy way to avoid being tested; don't ask the state for gimme dats. Which many did:


I DEMAND FREE MONEY WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED. MUH RIGHTS.

Okay, so you agree we should be drug testing anyone who takes a mortgage or child tax credit, or who works for / owns a business in an industry the government subsidizes, right? After all, if they don't want to be tested, they can just not take the tax credits and switch industries, right? Or does it magically not count as welfare just because the recipients aren't poor?

 

[Jhhnn]

Horseshit thread is horseshit.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/1...-is-a-sham-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/



They have an easy way to avoid being tested; don't ask the state for gimme dats. Which many did:



I DEMAND FREE MONEY WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED. MUH RIGHTS.

It's not what they want, it's just what the system offers them in lieu of paying work. It's what they get from the great nation of Murrica & the revered Job Creators. That, & shit talkin' from self righteous fools.

The notion that poor kids should go hungry in this land of plenty is one of the most twisted attitudes imaginable, regardless of the minor sins of their parents.

 

[dainthomas]

Okay, so you agree we should be drug testing anyone who takes a mortgage or child tax credit, or who works for / owns a business in an industry the government subsidizes, right? After all, if they don't want to be tested, they can just not take the tax credits and switch industries, right? Or does it magically not count as welfare just because the recipients aren't poor?

Farming being an obvious example. How funny would that be?

 

[Joepublic2]

It's possible that people frequenting thrift stores and food pantries for basic necessities don't have the money to front for tests and wait however long for reimbursement. So they basically got kicked off welfare for no reason at all.

As others have said, the policy's only purpose is to demonize a group of people in order to reinforce righty talking points.

The money would have come out of their benefits, of course. No "fronting" necessary. Keep on setting up ridiculous strawmen, though.

Okay, so you agree we should be drug testing anyone who takes a mortgage or child tax credit, or who works for / owns a business in an industry the government subsidizes, right? After all, if they don't want to be tested, they can just not take the tax credits and switch industries, right? Or does it magically not count as welfare just because the recipients aren't poor?

Farming being an obvious example. How funny would that be?

Cool with me. We shouldn't be giving tax credits for any of that stuff in the first place. Just more social engineering bullshit. I don't care if people do drugs; I think prohibition of all substances should be immediately stopped in fact. I do have a problem with people using my taxes to buy their drugs.

It's not what they want, it's just what the system offers them in lieu of paying work. It's what they get from the great nation of Murrica & the revered Job Creators. That, & shit talkin' from self righteous fools.

The notion that poor kids should go hungry in this land of plenty is one of the most twisted attitudes imaginable, regardless of the minor sins of their parents.

Yes, the blame lies at my feet, not their neglectful parents that spend money on drugs instead of food. This is one place I think the state should intervene; welfare + failed drug test should mean you're an unfit parent and the state should step in to provide a good standard of living and living environment (compared to useless/neglectful parents that is, a decent family would be best), as well as making sure you don't have any more if you want any future payouts.

 

[Fern]

Then every American should be tested on a random basis without cause, right? And there should be random drug searches of every American's domicile, without cause. And Americans should be randomly frisked for drugs in public.

Because it's so important for the government to deter Americans from using drugs.

I think you know the answer, but are acting silly.

Here are a couple of other examples you could have used:

1. You want to apply for a permit to buy a gun - have a background check done and pay a fee.

2. You want to drive a car - submit to random stops for license checks.

3. Wanna fly on a plane? - get a free x-ray or cavity check at the airport.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

Then every American should be tested on a random basis without cause, right? And there should be random drug searches of every American's domicile, without cause. And Americans should be randomly frisked for drugs in public.

Because it's so important for the government to deter Americans from using drugs.

While I completely disagree with the war on drugs and think it should be completely eliminated with all drugs made completely legal....

I gotta take a piss test to make money and pay taxes so why shouldn't someone have to take a piss test to receive a "paycheck" that my taxes are paying? Maybe it will piss off even more people on the entire war on drugs and make more advocates of ending it.

Edit: Holy shit, I just read the "testing procedures" used to generate the numbers in the OP. They just asked people if they took drugs, really???

And I don't have to pay for my employment drug tests and I can afford it, they should not have to pay for theirs either.

 

[Jhhnn]

es, the blame lies at my feet, not their neglectful parents that spend money on drugs instead of food. This is one place I think the state should intervene; welfare + failed drug test should mean you're an unfit parent and the state should step in to provide a good standard of living and living environment (compared to useless/neglectful parents that is, a decent family would be best), as well as making sure you don't have any more if you want any future payouts.

Ooooh! The self righteous moralizing!

Why is it that you say welfare + failed drug test rather than just failed drug test wrt child removal? Is there something morally inferior about poor people? Say in southeastern Kentucky, one of the poorest regions in the country?

 

[HeXen]

Most people that do drugs and work for companies that test, pass them just fine. It's not hard. One of my coworkers passed by holding water in his mouth, peed a little in the cup then the rest with the water he was holding after smoking a joint the night before even...passed no problems. Those urine tests are junk.

 

[Jhhnn]

While I completely disagree with the war on drugs and think it should be completely eliminated with all drugs made completely legal....

I gotta take a piss test to make money and pay taxes so why shouldn't someone have to take a piss test to receive a "paycheck" that my taxes are paying? Maybe it will piss off even more people on the entire war on drugs and make more advocates of ending it.

More likely it'll just create more bullshit.

Which is what we're talking about when we're talking about urine testing for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites. It's half of all workplace tested 'positivity" & likely higher with random rather than for cause or pre-employment testing.

http://newsroom.questdiagnostics.co...sting-Index-Analysis-of-Employment-Drug-Tests

You have to actually read that to parse out the fact that positives for cannabis are half, btw.

Which leads us to question why cannabis users should be singled out- because they're lawbreakers. Which leads to the question of why we define them as such- because we can. We must, in order to protect white women from their own impulses & to prevent the outbreak of reefer madness, don't you see?

Any questions?

Too bad that there's not a test for drinkers, scratch card lotto players, chronic speeders & guys who spend too much on ammo, huh?

 

[Joepublic2]

Ooooh! The self righteous moralizing!

Why is it that you say welfare + failed drug test rather than just failed drug test wrt child removal? Is there something morally inferior about poor people? Say in southeastern Kentucky, one of the poorest regions in the country?

No, nothing morally inferior about poor people or drug users. I grew up poor and I've never met a drug I didn't like. This isn't a morality issue it's an issue of selfish people creating huge problems and forcing other people to pick up the slack, in this case. If you can materially provide for your kid while using drugs it's not my problem or my business. It becomes my problem when I have to subsidize such behavior though my taxes (that's money I could have spent on beer and dabs). Just because somebody's on welfare/SNAP or w/e doesn't mean their a bad parent, shit happens and capitalist societies do rapidly change gears and boom/bust and leave people in the lurch. And I do understand that there aren't enough jobs to go around, and you need to provide some type of assistance or logically the only way left to provide for oneself and dependents is to turn to crime. But recreational drugs are a pure luxury and people that use them while being unable to feed/clothe/house their own flesh and blood are the definition of selfish. I'd feel the same way if they were gambling the money away or using it for hookers or even buying dumb knickknacks they didn't need or any other superfluous things.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, nothing morally inferior about poor people or drug users. I grew up poor and I've never met a drug I didn't like. This isn't a morality issue it's an issue of selfish people creating huge problems and forcing other people to pick up the slack, in this case. If you can materially provide for your kid while using drugs it's not my problem or my business. It becomes my problem when I have to subsidize such behavior though my taxes (that's money I could have spent on beer and dabs). Just because somebody's on welfare/SNAP or w/e doesn't mean their a bad parent, shit happens and capitalist societies do rapidly change gears and boom/bust and leave people in the lurch. And I do understand that there aren't enough jobs to go around, and you need to provide some type of assistance or logically the only way left to provide for oneself and dependents is to turn to crime. But recreational drugs are a pure luxury and people that use them while being unable to feed/clothe/house their own flesh and blood are the definition of selfish. I'd feel the same way if they were gambling the money away or using it for hookers or even buying dumb knickknacks they didn't need or any other superfluous things.

Which dodges the question entirely, the one where we spend more money testing than we save in keeping kids hungry. Does your moralizing extend into that realm?

 

[Joepublic2]

Which leads us to question why cannabis users should be singled out- because they're lawbreakers. Which leads to the question of why we define them as such- because we can. We must, in order to protect white women from their own impulses & to prevent the outbreak of reefer madness, don't you see?

We're singled out because an overarching overly-centralized power structure completely unaccountable to the public unless it chooses/pretends to be decreed that everybody living within its military jurisdiction no longer has sovereignty over their own bodies or minds, using the pretense of protecting them from themselves. I mean that's the long and short of it without all the racial hyperbole.

 

[Joepublic2]

Which dodges the question entirely, the one where we spend more money testing than we save in keeping kids hungry. Does your moralizing extend into that realm?

Maybe I'm approaching this the wrong way. I think it would be fun to live in a tent and smoke trees and fuck all day without rubbers. I'll just leave the resulting babies on your doorstep for you to take care of. I'm sure you're okay with this and wouldn't raise any objections to my behavior?

But to answer your question, yes I am moralizing to the extent where I have an expectation of myself and others to not be a huge burden on society though selfish actions. I'm a regular puritan.

Which dodges the question entirely, the one where we spend more money testing than we save in keeping kids hungry. Does your moralizing extend into that realm?

Which is why I said the state should raise them if their parents aren't even making an attempt to not be an enormous burden on everybody around them.

 

[IronWing]

Which is why I said the state should raise them if their parents aren't even making an attempt to not be an enormous burden on everybody around them.

States have a very poor record when it comes to raising children. Nobody wants to pay for it.

 

[Joepublic2]

States have a very poor record when it comes to raising children. Nobody wants to pay for it.

It's almost as if people resent being forced to raised children that aren't their own. Maybe we shouldn't be encouraging behavior that leads to this problem in the first place?

 

[feralkid]

You can argue that out with the Tennessee Department of Human Services who supplied the info to the Tennessean:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...welfare-applicants-yields-positives/23085301/

Tenneseean is Tenne-believeing.

:thumbsup:

 

[feralkid]

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a totally republican controlled country?
Just hate hate hate, all day, every day, day in and day out.
Hate for immigrants, hate for gays, hate for blacks, hate for the poor, hate for Jews, hate for education, hate for unions, hate for seniors, hate for veterans, hate for the ill, hate for the disabled, hate hate hate. Lots of hate. Pure never ending hate. Hate from sun up to sun down.
As that Beach Boys song goes... Wouldn't It Be Nice?

I hate the Beach Boys.
















just kidding.

 

[IronWing]

It's almost as if people resent being forced to raised children that aren't their own. Maybe we shouldn't be encouraging behavior that leads to this problem in the first place?

Could you aim for just a bit of consistency between posts?

 

[Joepublic2]

Could you aim for just a bit of consistency between posts?

I am consistent. Yeah, I resent paying for the state to raise loser's kids but given the alternative is them starving to death or growing up to rob me I'll do it.

 

[gryphus]

It's just another failed attempt to make those receiving welfare look to be unworthy of help , to make it seem right to gut the program as much as possible. Lets test congress, I'd bet that at least 40 members fail.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe I'm approaching this the wrong way. I think it would be fun to live in a tent and smoke trees and fuck all day without rubbers. I'll just leave the resulting babies on your doorstep for you to take care of. I'm sure you're okay with this and wouldn't raise any objections to my behavior?

Straight to absudity.

But to answer your question, yes I am moralizing to the extent where I have an expectation of myself and others to not be a huge burden on society though selfish actions. I'm a regular puritan.

The burden is largely America's children. And they're only a burden because the sacred job creators' system makes some people live in poverty.

Which is why I said the state should raise them if their parents aren't even making an attempt to not be an enormous burden on everybody around them.

Be sure to represent poor people as lazy, advocate even greater expense for the taxpayers taking children away from their parents, right?

I'm detecting a bit of an accent in your writing- Glenbeckistan, I think.

 

[berzerker60]

While I completely disagree with the war on drugs and think it should be completely eliminated with all drugs made completely legal....

I gotta take a piss test to make money and pay taxes so why shouldn't someone have to take a piss test to receive a "paycheck" that my taxes are paying? Maybe it will piss off even more people on the entire war on drugs and make more advocates of ending it..

You shouldn't have to take a piss test to earn your money. Just because you're getting fucked, don't turn around and fuck over other people even worse. Work to improve your own lot in life as well as theirs.

I swear 90% of this country would be happy living under a tarp eating rats as long as the next guy over somehow has it worse.

 

[FelixDeCat]

lol potheads

 

[Joepublic2]

Straight to absudity.

LOL, your heart bleeds until you personally have to deal with a social problem. Then all the high horse bloviating flys out the window and it suddenly becomes "absud".

The burden is largely America's children. And they're only a burden because the sacred job creators' system makes some people live in poverty.

Nobody is saying it's perfect. Go ahead and show us the economic system that works better.

Be sure to represent poor people as lazy, advocate even greater expense for the taxpayers taking children away from their parents, right?

Go ahead and quote where I called them lazy. So you'd have them be raised by parents that use benefits that should go towards the kids for their own selfish ends? Throw money at them and hope they spend some on the kid? Maybe we should call it trickle down parenting. I'm sure the kids are thanking you.

I'm detecting a bit of an accent in your writing- Glenbeckistan, I think.

I'm noticing an inflection of Dumbfuckistan in yours.