Now THIS is a wonderful concept .....

http://www.wral.com/business/story/4815353/

 

'Bout time. You can't get employed if you test positive for drug use, you shouldn't be able to sit on your arse and get $$ without working while testing positive for drugs. Civil liberties my arse.

 

Nope.

Such an invasion of privacy. And that money could be better spent. Given the overwhelming rates of people applying for unemployment, even some on this board, I would not be OK with their being randomly selected, to prove that they are "worthy" of public assistance by testing for drugs.

 

So... you want to fund somebody who would rather sit and home and get high instead of work?

 

I disagree. Anyone in a professional position probably has to submit to random drug testing if their employer requests it, the military does it (I can't count the number of times DH was tested). If I get a new job, more than likely I will be tested. I just don't see what the big deal is.

 

Tuesday I was with a group that met with Senator Rouzer. He said he would be introducing a bill that will require drug tests to receive $ in NC. The bill was intorduced Wednesday.

Read it here
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S941v0.pdf

The bill will also require those receiving funds meet one of the following...

1. currently employed with a part-time job

2. furthering his/her education

3. perform community service


To see other bills he recently introduced
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/reports/introducedBills.pl?nUserID=234&Chamber=S

 

While I would tend to agree on the surface, I can see a couple of issues, not the least of which is a privacy issue.

More importantly, though, is that fact that these people are already breaking the law. If you put them in a position where they need money and can't get funding from the government, where do you think they will turn? I can guess that break-ins and muggings will increase dramatically. You may not want to fund people who would rather sit home and get high, but would you rather be the vicitim of a home invasion?

 

I agree...

If my "drug-free tested" arse is contributing via my tax dollars to these programs, then I want it to go to recipients that are drug-free and truly need it. I don't want to support those people on welfare who are just cheating the system so they can sit home and smoke more crack. :?

 

Saving money??? It shouldn't be based solely on that and furthermore yeah how much would we save by booting the hundred of thousands off the system for doing it... It may balance itself out if not be a bonus to the states...

 

I'm not scared. Have you ever been accosted by a stoner? :lol:

"Uh huhuhuh huhuhuh huhuhuhuh. Uh.... Give me your money. And twinkies... Uh huhuhuh huhuh. Dude! Is that the new Beyonce video?"

But seriously, yeah - I would rather they break in somewhere and get caught and go to jail and have mandatory drug counseling and other options/resources than sit at home and fry their brains on my dime. There are also programs like that available that do not require a prerequisite of jail time. I see what you are saying Clif, but I just cannot in good conscience "pay" people not to commit crimes.

 

Cmon on clify... pay someone to kreep the crime rate down... you can do better than that...

 

LOL... Cmon C Lo it's not the hippie lettuce to be worried about, the crack heads and meth freaks..

 

LMAO:lol::lol::lol: but seriously, i totally agree with the last line.

 

That was not what I said, nor anywhere near it.

There is, nor there ever should be, any type of test that a citizen of this nation should have to prove they are a good citizen; no poll tax, no proof of land ownership to vote, no test of reading ability to vote....no one should have to prove their worth. And, implicit in this proposal is that these people are inherently unworthy and therefore, lesser citizens because of their status.


The morass that is opened is unfathomable? Do we penalize those people who inadvertently are exposed to abusive substances? I've heard that a measurable amount of paper money in circulation has a detectable level suggesting exposure to illegal drugs, just due to the infiltration into the money supply of paper bills that have been handled by drug users. Who gets blamed for testing positive for that?

Does society then cutoff benefits for children born to substance abusive parents?

This idea, personally repugnant to me, is such a slippery slope. Once the test for drugs for government benefits begins, who determines the demographics of those to be tested...and then how subject to change might that be.

DO we drug test parents to see who shoudl be allowed to procreate? Or is this somehow overlooking the fact that there are non substance abusing parents who aren't worth a dime in their own right?

It seemingly starts with getting those off public assistance that "good citizens" deem unworthy...but what then? Should veterans lose their benefits because they develop a substance abuse problem as a means to deal with PTSD or TBI?

Do we next require drug tests for those who want to vote? Or some blood test to determine whether or not a person smokes, and if so, because of the tremendous societal healthcare costs associated with tobacco related health issues, deny them coverage?

I am in agreement that the system does in fact allow some ne'er do wells to subside at the public expense. Trying to weed them out of the system, this way, is an expensive method of going dove hunting with howitzers.

Sounds to me like this is a measure employed by such places as Singapore. Been there. Real clean. Safe to walk at night. Don't make the mistake of spitting on a sidewalk, or accidentally littering as the fines are huge. Ask Michael Fay about painting someone's car. Yes, he was wrong to do it, and should have been punished.

Somehow, being caned by a martial artist seems too harsh for me, but then again, I'm a citizen of a nation that was founded on liberty that tries to strike the balance between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

We either have our liberty and must be vigilant in our protection of it, or else we cede the decisions to those who would enslave us.

 

:iagree:

 

It's real simple to me Hat, doing drug is against the law. When it's not, then we can address the above.

 

butbutbut Kdc, didn't you know illegal does not mean not legal anymore:lol:

 

Fries my ***, that is for sure. My husband and I manage to get up and go to work everyday for what we have, and if someone needs assistance funded by the taxes we have to pay, the least we can expect is that they are making an honest effort to better themselves AND not be on drugs. I'm not, why should my taxes go to someone who is? :?

 

Never disagreed that drug abuse is legal. SO what drug do we choose? Alcohol? DUI is illegal. Do we then disqualify everyone whose ever been convicted of DUI from ever receiving benefits?

So if we are so quick to require drug testing for other reasons, what's to stop the LEO's from setting up a breathalyzer station outside the exit door to the local drinking establishment, and then arresting everyone that exits for public intoxication, or DUI once they sit behind the wheel and energize the ignition. Would any of the board folks here be adversely affected?

I am not defending any type of substance abuse here, nor have I ever advocated it.

Just because it's popular, doesn't make it right.

This idea begins with a small attempt to restore some sense of fair play from those who pay and those who receive. I get that.

The method used to "fix" this inequity, though, sets us on a path from which there is no turning back.

 

Sorry guys, I agree with Hat. In principal it sounds like a good solution, but I think the current bill that's being proposed addresses the problem better.

Be employed part time, be in school, or do community service. That sounds about right to me, with a few exceptions, (older people who can't get around).

I know when we hear the word "drugs" we picture thugs or no-good lazy system sucking drags on society, but it's not always the case. I know several productive members of society that light up on a regular basis.

Anyway, that's just my take....carry on....