OT: Drug Testing

[ICON]

How about we drug test and Breathalyzer those Tax-Cuts-To-The-Rich people? When (not if) they test positive, we take their tax cuts away. Seems to me this would generate a lot more money.

[ICON]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

How much is this going to cost?

Sounds funny to me. First off it looks like an attempt to further alienate, degrade and dehumanize people who need public assistance, more fodder for the class war and demonetization of the little guy. Wonder who benefits from that.

Second, if any one gets sent to jail behind these drug tests, I can’t help but believe they will be sent to private jails, and if there are no private jails there yet, the contracts and licenses for private jails are being issued as we speak. Which leads me to guesstimate that any monies saved from welfare, will be more than cancelled out all to the ultimate expense of the tax payer.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by Mightysmurf

Some of those are important... such as the study of Cows and greenhouse gas emissions. I'm as fiscally conservative as anybody in terms of ideology, but I'm not too concerned about pork barrel spending - it's minuscule compared to entitlement spending and some very important scientific advancements have been made due to pork.

I can actually see legitimate value in at least half of that list. Some of the ones that seem most absurd are the animal studies but if you look deeper they often study animals that have a large impact on their environment. Like the prairie dog/wood chuck studies. They are a keystone species and as such there are a lot of studies devoted to them. Very interesting stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species

[Swedish Extrovert]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

I can actually see legitimate value in at least half of that list.

Me too.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by ICON

Sounds funny to me. First off it looks like an attempt to further alienate, degrade and dehumanize people who need public assistance, more fodder for the class war and demonetization of the little guy. Wonder who benefits from that.

Second, if any one gets sent to jail behind these drug tests, I can’t help but believe they will be sent to private jails, and if there are no private jails there yet, the contracts and licenses for private jails are being issued as we speak. Which leads me to guesstimate that any monies saved from welfare, will be more than cancelled out all to the ultimate expense of the tax payer.

Then there's the whole issue of managing that many tests, a system to challenge results, false positives, etc etc. Are we ready to deny an old lady her social security or a mother with children her food stamps because she ate a poppy seed bagel and had a false positive?

It sounds like a disaster in the making when you get down to the logistics.

[ant1999e]

Some of you people are ridiculous.

[AK Broncomaniac]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Some of you people are ridiculous.

Perhaps the majority... that's why the off-season posts are so entertaining!

[Tombstone RJ]

I think it's a "fair" law. That is, anyone who knows my politcal opinion knows I'm about less government, however the government I do favor is one with "common sense" laws, and this is one of those laws. It's about enabling an addictive system/lifestyle or forcing some change for the betterment of all of society.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

I think it's a "fair" law. That is, anyone who knows my politcal opinion knows I'm about less government, however the government I do favor is one with "common sense" laws, and this is one of those laws. It's about enabling an addictive system/lifestyle or forcing some change for the betterment of all of society.

If this is being pushed solely for monetary reasons I think we'll find very little common sense in this law. I expect costs incurred through testing and potential prison sentences to be far greater than denying benefits. If it's being pushed as a way to reform an issue (drugs in this case) then it will have to be evaluated later. My opinion is this will probably cause bigger problems than the ones that already exist.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

If this is being pushed solely for monetary reasons I think we'll find very little common sense in this law. If it's being pushed as a way to reform an issue (drugs in this case) then it will have to be evaluated later. My opinion is this will probably cause bigger problems than the ones that already exist.

let's see what happens first, let the results speak and if it sucks, remove it... yah know, democracy style!!

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

let's see what happens first, let the results speak and if it sucks, remove it... yah know, democracy style!!

That would be ideal and I would be all for it except for one thing. Politicians can't repeal it without appearing "soft on crime" and all that jazz. Michigan passed a law that called for automatic jail time for repeat drug offenders. Everybody loved the law and I'm pretty sure it still exists today. Prison populations exploded, costs went through the roof, and the problem wasn't even scratched. But the law stays in place regardless of no positive returns because to repeal it would appear "soft on crime" at election time. The man who sponsored the bill calls it one of his biggest regrets.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

That would be ideal and I would be all for it except for one thing. Politicians can't repeal it without appearing "soft on crime" and all that jazz. Michigan passed a law that called for automatic jail time for repeat drug offenders. Everybody loved the law and I'm pretty sure it still exists today. Prison populations exploded, costs went through the roof, and the problem wasn't even scratched. But the law stays in place regardless of no positive returns because to repeal it would appear "soft on crime" at election time. The man who sponsored the bill calls it one of his biggest regrets.

dude, get real, the law you mention is not related to this situation, no one's going to jail here brosef, they just can't receive monies for drugs and alcohol and such... it's so strange that some defend this as an oppressive law when in reality it's a 'I'm not gonna pay for your party 24/7 360' type oh law... we have so many... where's the harm in this... .

[ICON]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

dude, get real, the law you mention is not related to this situation, no one's going to jail here brosef, they just can't receive monies for drugs and alcohol and such... it's so strange that some defend this as an oppressive law when in reality it's a 'I'm not gonna pay for your party 24/7 360' type oh law... we have so many... where's the harm in this... .

Public out cry the first time a murder, rape or child abuse happens from a welfare person who fails the drug test but is not thrown in jail will make not jailing people politically impossible.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

dude, get real, the law you mention is not related to this situation, no one's going to jail here brosef, they just can't receive monies for drugs and alcohol and such... it's so strange that some defend this as an oppressive law when in reality it's a 'I'm not gonna pay for your party 24/7 360' type oh law... we have so many... where's the harm in this... .

They are related to the point I was trying to make. This law is going to cost far more money than it ever saves by denying benefits and once it is in place it will be damn near impossible to repeal. People on drugs aren't going to quit because they lost access to their welfare check. They'll get the money elsewhere and we all know that won't be a productive addition to society.

This law is about punishing people not helping them. You want to tie benefits to some required standard? Have it tied to mandatory rehab. That might actually benefit somebody. The law as is won't benefit anybody. Especially tax payers.

[ICON]

A friend of mine is on medicaid. She has been disabled since birth with cerebral palsy. She is in a wheel chair and cannot work. If her medicaid were revoked for any reason, she would be most likely be dead and suffer excruciating pain in the process. If marijuana were able to relieve any of her discomfort, I would make every effort to acquire it for her.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

They are related to the point I was trying to make. This law is going to cost far more money than it ever saves by denying benefits and once it is in place it will be damn near impossible to repeal. People on drugs aren't going to quit because they lost access to their welfare check. They'll get the money elsewhere and we all know that won't be a productive addition to society.

This law is about punishing people not helping them. You want to tie benefits to some required standard? Have it tied to mandatory rehab. That might actually benefit somebody. The law as is won't benefit anybody. Especially tax payers.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, I think the law will save the tax payer's money because I think it will force more people to work, yes, the addicts will flush themselves into the toilet sooner or later, but many abled people will instead, yah know, find a job. and work.

[ChrisToker]

Originally Posted by Ray_Lewis'_Victim

Rick Scott has a significant financial stake in the companies performing the drug tests. Clear conflict of interest.

The revolving doors of politics. Aint it a biscuit. Did you know pretty much all 'elected' officials are taking part in this? Any one in the FDA worked for Monsanto, any one that worked for Monsanto goes on to FDA. How else would they get all the GMO's to pass swiftly w/out propper testing. Same goes for Treasury departmen. If you are part of treasury department you came from Goldman Sachs and vise versa. PPL still wonder why US is going bankrupt.

[ICON]

next up 11 Million unemployment will be tested for drugs.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by ICON

Public out cry the first time a murder, rape or child abuse happens from a welfare person who fails the drug test but is not thrown in jail will make not jailing people politically impossible.

It almost becomes inevitable that they HAVE to be jailed. By revoking welfare for a failed drug test the government is admitting, on paper, that it is aware this person is a drug user and is breaking the law. If those people are not jailed and one of them goes on to hurt somebody shortly after losing their welfare checks you can bet there will be a huge lawsuit and an over emotional public fueling the flames.

[SouthStndJunkie]

What happens when all these addicts don't get their welfare money and then get really desperate for the next fix and start rolling people?

Most of these folks aren't going to get jobs to make up for the lost money, they will commit crimes.

In theory, I like the idea, but there will be repercussions that may be a lot worse than anticipated.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

It almost becomes inevitable that they HAVE to be jailed. By revoking welfare for a failed drug test the government is admitting, on paper, that it is aware this person is a drug user and is breaking the law. If those people are not jailed and one of them goes on to hurt somebody shortly after losing their welfare checks you can bet there will be a huge lawsuit and an over emotional public fueling the flames.

whatever, if you test positive for an illegal substance the state simply refuses to give you a check, the test is absolutely private, and the government has to write legislation to enforce it's privacy. It cannot be held against you in any future arrest. period.

this is how it should be done...

[ICON]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

whatever, if you test positive for an illegal substance the state simply refuses to give you a check, the test is absolutely private, and the government has to write legislation to enforce it's privacy. It cannot be held against you in any future arrest. period.

this is how it should be done...

You still on that trust the government to do the right thing vibe ...nice

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by ICON

You still on that trust the government to do the right thing vibe ...nice

not really, but I believe we have a friggen pleathera of lawyers just itching for a fight...

[ICON]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

not really, but I believe we have a friggen pleathera of lawyers just itching for a fight...

I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are mostly quite content with their situation.

In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.

And now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.

What’s in it for government?

How can government – and government workers – benefit from having to exist within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each other?

On what grounds can the government say to the people, “You need more government. Give us more tax money.”

Well, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to persuade the people to part with more of their own resources – acquired through their own labours – in order to fund ‘more government’.

However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or other – some force that induces ‘disharmony’ within the population – an increase in crime, say – then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger piece of the society’s pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce to look after the women and children who are now on their own.

And the point that I am trying to get across here is this.

Governments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by them being at war with each other in some way.

Of course, governments can benefit from many other things too, but the point here is this. Governments clearly benefit from what I shall henceforth simply call ‘disharmony’ – societal disharmony; such as crime....

And, collectively, by hook or by crook, these government workers can, and will, create the most monumental force in order to get these various benefits for themselves; a force that the people simply cannot counter.

"They" just want more money! Well as for me... I'd rather give more money to the crack heads on Welfare then any more dang money for wall street.

[ICON]

live in poverty and deprivation, … be troublesome in school, … have more difficulty getting along with others, … have more health problems, … suffer from physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, … run away from home, … get sexual diseases, … become teenage parents, … offend against the law, … smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, … play truant from school, … be excluded from school, … behave violently, … give up on education at an early age, … make poor adjustments to adulthood, … attain little in the way of qualifications, … experience unemployment, … have low incomes, … be on welfare, … experience homelessness, … go to jail, … suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems, … engage only in casual relationships, … have children outside marriage or, indeed, outside any partnership.




But, clearly, governments benefit fantastically from this; because governments can use these enormous problems to justify even further increases in both taxes and power.

After all, the people want to be protected from all the negative social consequences of drug addiction – and, of course, the victims themselves could clearly do with a bit of extra help.

And so governments can justify (and, hence, finagle and extract) much more money from the people in order to acquire more police officers, more prison officers, more probation officers, more welfare officers, more lawyers, judges and other courtroom staff, more psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, doctors, nurses, social workers, remedial educationalists and, indeed, even more street cleaners! – and, of course, many, many more bureaucrats to monitor and to exert control in all of these areas.

And the increases in taxes and power that governments can suck up to themselves as a result these negative social consequences really are huge.

And, if you can believe it, I have not yet even mentioned all those lawyers, judges and bureaucrats who are part of the system itself; together with all those professionals who have to get involved in matters to do with this.