Aufan59 83 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I thought the whole point was to incentivize people not abusing drugs... Looks like it worked to me. What's ironic here, is that you don't see a problem with an entitlement base SO LARGE that it cost 178 million dollars to drug test them all - and that's just one state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzurd24 11 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I thought the whole point was to incentivize people not abusing drugs... Looks like it worked to me. What's ironic here, is that you don't see a problem with an entitlement base SO LARGE that it cost 178 million dollars to drug test them all - and that's just one state. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 I thought the whole point was to incentivize people not abusing drugs... Looks like it worked to me. If that really was the point, would you be for drug testing everyone to incentivize not using drugs? What's ironic here, is that you don't see a problem with an entitlement base SO LARGE that it cost 178 million dollars to drug test them all - and that's just one state. I thought the issue of a large entitlement base was how much it cost tax payers. If they are willing to pay $178 million to catch 2% using drugs, is it really about cost to tax payers? Edit: At second glance, the $178 million figure doesn't really tell us much. Apparently there are around 110,000 people on welfare in Florida, around 0.6% of the population. I don't think that is SO LARGE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I thought the whole point was to incentivize people not abusing drugs... Looks like it worked to me. What's ironic here, is that you don't see a problem with an entitlement base SO LARGE that it cost 178 million dollars to drug test them all - and that's just one state. Your math is not very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I thought the whole point was to incentivize people not abusing drugs... Looks like it worked to me. If that really was the point, would you be for drug testing everyone to incentivize not using drugs? What's ironic here, is that you don't see a problem with an entitlement base SO LARGE that it cost 178 million dollars to drug test them all - and that's just one state. I thought the issue of a large entitlement base was how much it cost tax payers. If they are willing to pay $178 million to catch 2% using drugs, is it really about cost to tax payers? Edit: At second glance, the $178 million figure doesn't really tell us much. Apparently there are around 110,000 people on welfare in Florida, around 0.6% of the population. I don't think that is SO LARGE. Ok. So what does it say about government run programs - when it costs, according to your numbers, $1,618 per person to do a drug test? (Private drug tests cost around $50) So, yeah, let's let the government run more stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 I thought the whole point was to incentivize people not abusing drugs... Looks like it worked to me. If that really was the point, would you be for drug testing everyone to incentivize not using drugs? What's ironic here, is that you don't see a problem with an entitlement base SO LARGE that it cost 178 million dollars to drug test them all - and that's just one state. I thought the issue of a large entitlement base was how much it cost tax payers. If they are willing to pay $178 million to catch 2% using drugs, is it really about cost to tax payers? Edit: At second glance, the $178 million figure doesn't really tell us much. Apparently there are around 110,000 people on welfare in Florida, around 0.6% of the population. I don't think that is SO LARGE. Ok. So what does it say about government run programs - when it costs, according to your numbers, $1,618 per person to do a drug test? (Private drug tests cost around $50) So, yeah, let's let the government run more stuff. It seems we agree, this was a huge waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Technically, all government programs are a waste of money. Because they're wildly inefficient. But this study doesn't do anything to counter the efficacy of a drug testing requirement for welfare recipients. I don't understand why its such an offensive suggestion - that we expect our people living off the government to AT LEAST do us the courtesy of being drug free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 It is a violation of the constitution and a waste of money. As a conservative it is pretty easy for me to be against such a policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 It is a violation of the constitution and a waste of money. As a conservative it is pretty easy for me to be against such a policy. I don't think the constitution limits governing procedures as it relates to doling out free s***. You say it's a waste of money, I say the only waste is in its faulty implementation. Like other liberals, you feel it necessary to make procuring entitlments as painless as possible: we've got to give them a debit card because actual food stamps are embarassing, we can't have a food stamp store - that only contained the essentials (so people couldn't blow food stamps on cokes and lobster) - but that's embarassing, we can't drug test them because that might cause them to be responsible for something - we can't have that. - Being on food stamps SHOULD be embarassing - You SHOULD have some motivator to get off of them - You SHOULDN'T be allowed to blow it on coke and steak and lobster - You SHOULDN'T get to abuse drugs and still get benefits from the government. Especially when rampant drug use is what puts many of the people in position to need welfare in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 It is a violation of the constitution and a waste of money. As a conservative it is pretty easy for me to be against such a policy. I don't think the constitution limits governing procedures as it relates to doling out free s***. You say it's a waste of money, I say the only waste is in its faulty implementation. The bill of rights applies to all citizens. You don't forfeit your rights because the government gives you a benefit. Would you be fine with welfare recipients not having freedom of religion? Like other liberals, you feel it necessary to make procuring entitlments as painless as possible: Ensuring that citizens maintain their constitutional rights is not equivalent to ensuring entitlements are as painless as possible. If I'm a liberal because I believe in the bill of rights, then I guess I'm a liberal... - Being on food stamps SHOULD be embarassing- You SHOULD have some motivator to get off of them - You SHOULDN'T be allowed to blow it on coke and steak and lobster - You SHOULDN'T get to abuse drugs and still get benefits from the government. Especially when rampant drug use is what puts many of the people in position to need welfare in the first place. We agree for the most part. But you don't just violate the rights of citizens to meet this agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 They have the right to refuse the entitlements if they wish to continue abusing drugs. Do you think it is unconstitutional for employers to drug test potential employees? Would you be fine with welfare recipients not having freedom of religion? This argument makes no sense. Freedom of religion is legal, abusing drugs is not. Practicing religion in no way relates to perpetuating the need to stay on entitlements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 It is a violation of the constitution and a waste of money. As a conservative it is pretty easy for me to be against such a policy. I don't think the constitution limits governing procedures as it relates to doling out free s***. You say it's a waste of money, I say the only waste is in its faulty implementation. Like other liberals, you feel it necessary to make procuring entitlments as painless as possible: we've got to give them a debit card because actual food stamps are embarassing, we can't have a food stamp store - that only contained the essentials (so people couldn't blow food stamps on cokes and lobster) - but that's embarassing, we can't drug test them because that might cause them to be responsible for something - we can't have that. - Being on food stamps SHOULD be embarassing - You SHOULD have some motivator to get off of them - You SHOULDN'T be allowed to blow it on coke and steak and lobster - You SHOULDN'T get to abuse drugs and still get benefits from the government. Especially when rampant drug use is what puts many of the people in position to need welfare in the first place. I'm sure it is embarassing to members of our military as well. As the origional post pointed out, the people who recieve benefits aren't abusing drugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 They have the right to refuse the entitlements if they wish to continue abusing drugs. Do you think it is unconstitutional for employers to drug test potential employees? Yes it is constitutional for employers to drug test employees. The bill of rights limits the government.This argument makes no sense. Freedom of religion is legal, abusing drugs is not. Practicing religion in no way relates to perpetuating the need to stay on entitlements. You have no problem violating welfare recipients 4th amendment rights. I'm just curious what other rights you wouldn't mind taking away from welfare recipients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 They have the right to refuse the entitlements if they wish to continue abusing drugs. Do you think it is unconstitutional for employers to drug test potential employees? Yes it is constitutional for employers to drug test employees. The bill of rights limits the government.This argument makes no sense. Freedom of religion is legal, abusing drugs is not. Practicing religion in no way relates to perpetuating the need to stay on entitlements. You have no problem violating welfare recipients 4th amendment rights. I'm just curious what other rights you wouldn't mind taking away from welfare recipients. So now the Bill of Rights outlines inherent "rights" to no-strings entitlements? Really? They aren't kicking down the doors of private citizens and drug testing them. They're drug testing people willfully entering into the welfare program. Those people don't have to take welfare. The government requires me to have a license to operate an automobile. Does that violate my privacy and trample on my rights? Or can I just NOT drive a car if I'm so offended by the intrusion of a license mandate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 So now the Bill of Rights outlines inherent "rights" to no-strings entitlements? Really? They aren't kicking down the doors of private citizens and drug testing them. They're drug testing people willfully entering into the welfare program. Those people don't have to take welfare. The government requires me to have a license to operate an automobile. Does that violate my privacy and trample on my rights? Or can I just NOT drive a car if I'm so offended by the intrusion of a license mandate? The bill of rights protects us from search and seizure by the government unless there is probable cause that a crime was committed. Receiving federal assistance is not probable cause of a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 So now the Bill of Rights outlines inherent "rights" to no-strings entitlements? Really? They aren't kicking down the doors of private citizens and drug testing them. They're drug testing people willfully entering into the welfare program. Those people don't have to take welfare. The government requires me to have a license to operate an automobile. Does that violate my privacy and trample on my rights? Or can I just NOT drive a car if I'm so offended by the intrusion of a license mandate? The bill of rights protects us from search and seizure by the government unless there is probable cause that a crime was committed. Receiving federal assistance is not probable cause of a crime. It's not search and seizure. Welfare program participation isn't mandatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 It's not search and seizure. Welfare program participation isn't mandatory. You honestly think a drug test isn't a search? Being on welfare is not probable cause that you committed a crime. It doesn't matter if it is voluntary, you have a right to not be searched unless there is probable cause you committed a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 It's not search and seizure. Welfare program participation isn't mandatory. You honestly think a drug test isn't a search? Being on welfare is not probable cause that you committed a crime. It doesn't matter if it is voluntary, you have a right to not be searched unless there is probable cause you committed a crime. It does matter whether or not it is voluntary. They don't have to take the free s***. Just like you don't have to take the job that you apply for if they ask you to drug test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 83 Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 It is a suspicion-less search and seizure by the government. You are saying they should give up their 4th amendment rights in exchange for these benefits. What other constitutional rights would you be comfortable with them forfeiting? What other benefits should come with the requirement to give up certain rights? My grandfather receives far more from medicare and social security than he put in (he is taking "free s***"). Should he be drug tested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.