Now THIS is a wonderful concept .....

Ok, just one comment - how can people be so adamant to protect drug users rights and i pay for their habit and at the same time say it is ok for the government to control what restaurant owners do when it comes to smoking, seems like it is ok for the government to control what you want them to control but not what you don't, talking about opening the door and not being able to close it - control is control whether it is for something you want or not.

 

:hurray: you quieted things down... LOL

 

Why is it some claim it is acceptable to drink yet oppose driving after drinking? Could it be the impact in the health and well being of others? Allowing smoking in any building is acceptable to me if that building has two separate air handling systems and a design which allows for isolation of the smoke.

Also anyone breaking the law should be dealt with accordingly. The problem is the manner in which this is accomplished. Mandatory drug testing for the receipt of assistance by the government is essentially a search without probable cause, which is the concern.

 

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/34822res20080408.html


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/37

1. It was estimated that in the mid-1990s the United States spent $1 billion annually to drug test about 20 million workers.
   Source:
   Shepard, Edward M., and Thomas J. Clifton, Drug Testing and Labor Productivity: Estimates Applying a Production Function Model, Institute of Industrial Relations, Research Paper No. 18, Le Moyne University, Syracuse, NY (1998), p. 8.
   
   
   
   
   

1. One reason drug testing is not used by some employers is the cost. One electronics manufacturer estimated that the cost of finding each positive result was $20,000. After testing 10,000 employees he only found 49 positive results. A congressional committee estimated that the cost of each positive in government testing was $77,000 because the positive rate was only 0.5%.
   Source:
   "Workplace Substance Abuse Testing, Drug Testing: Cost and Effect," Cornell/Smithers Report, Utica, New York: Cornell University (January 1992).
   
   
   

 

In no post have I defended drug abuse. I merely pointed out that drug abuse is already illegal, and penalizing someone for it twice may be unconstitutional. The process mentioned at the first is an invasion of privacy and a threat to constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The other issue that you introduce is a choice by the state to protect the health of its citizens. They already do this by posting a speed limit, vehicle inspections, requiring seat belt use, and so many other areas. No one is suggesting that your personal right to smoke is at risk, nor what you do in the confines of your own property. The state is considering making it illegal to smoke in public places, where one person's tobacco use may adversely affect another person's health.

Two separate issues.

Hypothetically, if the government chooses to use drug abuse as an arbiter for denial of benefits for those on public assistance, what then is to prevent the government from taking away health benefits for veterans who have turned to drugs to escape from the issues they confront, which the VA has never adequately addressed.

We have so many veterans in need of counseling and other assistance that have turned to whatever means they could find to find solace or relief from their issues.

The VA is only recently orienting itself to mental health treatment for PTSD, TBI, and a host of other veteran's health issues that is was frankly cheaper for the VA to ignore. Solving these issues, on top of all the others for veterans becomes more expensive. Yet, if appropriate mental care and health care was provided from day one in an accessible fashion, no veteran should have to worry. And these days, the fight for federal funding is the entire argument that is brought forth. We're told that we can't afford to provide the best of health care for veterans. And, in my mind, their care should be the best available.

Who among you will tell a veteran that, although you appreciate the sacrifice they made which you were unwilling or unable to do, that their needs are now not as important as when the stuff was hitting the fan.

And in this day if fiscal concern, I can easily see the government trying to find reasons to reduce the payout to those who need help. Once the process begins, none of us are safe from it.

Medical and psychology experts now recognize that Ira Hayes, the Pima Indian who helped raise the flag on Iwo Jima, suffered from PTSD. At the time, he was considered just another dirty Indian with a drinking problem. There was even a song recorded, "The Ballad of Ira Hayes" which talked about the difficulties Mr. Hayes had.

I can easily see where, in the desire to keep "undesirables" and the "undeserving" from receiving public funds, by requiring that they live a drug free life, the rights of many are thrown away to appease the few.

Yes, there are bad apples receiving public assistance that should get off their sixes and become productive members of society.

Hard choices. Lasting effects.

 

i stand by my words and no amount of saying it ain't so or saying it isn't the same is gonna change my mind, government control is government control, accept it in all or accept it in none, not just what you choose. Everyone has the choice of what restaurant they go to but some folks seem to think the private businesses must cater to them and banish all smokers to "the back of the bus" and then all of a sudden government control is a good thing, whatever.

 

Just pointing out the inverse, which is no amount of saying it is so or it is the same will make it a "fact" for anyone else. There are facts related to the issue, but the actions resulting are opinions based on those facts.

 

Many years ago a good friend of mine worked for child welfare. There was one kid that never really looked healthy among other things. Anyway, she went to the grocery store and bought food for the family out of her own pocket and took it over to the family, afterwards she sat in her car around the corner and watched......the father took the groceries down to the corner and traded it for drugs.

Moral of the story............you decide.

 

oh ok... well that clears everything up..

 

When reviewing the studies on the problem with second hand smoke be sure to weigh background information on the author and as to whether it is from a published peer review study or just a "study" published on the internet. The blogs for interpretation of scientific information are also open for suspicion of misrepresentation based on their particular bias, in both the second hand smoke and global warming debates.

If one were to believe the studies funded and presented by the tobacco industry for years, one might believe smoking was not harmful to a smoker either.

 

First off, you are presuming that you are paying for their habit. While this may be true of heroin addicts, dopers are notoriously generous with their weed. If you partake, and go to a doper's house, odds are he'll be more than happy to pass to you without expecting the same in return.

Second, I don't believe the government should be able to tell a business owner that he cannot allow a legal activity to occur in his place of business.

 

some of you might change your minds if you sat out on your front porch and watched the neighbors make drug transactions in their yard everyday, cursing at the kids because they have accidentally walked up on it. threatening to f them up if they didn't get back in the house.