DRUG TESTING

[J.Wilkins]

Shouldn't they then also test for alcohol or coffee? It's all used to self-medicate for emotional issues, relaxation, sleep, and pain relief, or waking up. The horror!

Drug use is unrelated to the need for support (IMO).

Given that alcohol and coffee (really? coffee?) are legal drugs it's not comparable.

Your fight should be with drug legalization, not that illegal activities should be allowed because legal activities that are comparable in effect are allowed.

 

[J.Wilkins]

The very thing that changed my mind on the issue, and you are correct regarding Rick Scott's attempt to get rich on the legislation he was pursuing.

If we're talking drug tests the only one I feel is worth the money would be drug testing all of Congress and the White House. Let them live up to the same standards we expect from enlisted and other Federal employees.

Drug testing people in charge would actually serve a purpose, as would researching them for corruption but then again, we'd have no politicians left if we did all that in neither your nation nor mine.

 

[senseamp]

Yes, if parents got hooked on opioids, kids should go without health care and food. It makes total sense, if you are a conservative, and is totally what Jesus would support.

 

[J.Wilkins]

What does a friend sharing the pot have to do with it? The fact that I didnt buy it doesnt matter. I was just asking what people opinion on the topic was. Different from mine or not.. If i choose to smoke pot or smoke crack and i have to be drug tested and i fail knowing my kids will suffer if i choose to do those things then i should make better decisions as a parent.. in MY opinion. What difference does it make if its my friends herioin or crack?

You are simplifying this beyond any real world situation.

From what I gather it saves no one any money, second hand tobacco smoke is more harmful and in the end you are forcing your own beliefs onto others by the threat of having their children starve.

Don't be a fascist, it's unbecoming.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Yes, if parents got hooked on opioids, kids should go without health care and food. It makes total sense, if you are a conservative, and is totally what Jesus would support.

Sometimes... I love your posts.

 

[Nikip88]

Why stop at drug testing? Why not block benefits if people buy lottery tickets? Cigarettes? Porn? Alcohol? Abortions? Birth Control? Junk food?

Hey, I bet if we dig deep enough we can find a reason to deny benefits to everyone, so the hungry can starve and the sick can rot in the street.

Thanks for posting OP, you fucking piece of shit. I'm glad your children benefitted from a social program you would deny to everyone else's.

YOU'RE WELCOME. !!!!! BC NO WHERE IN MY OP DID I SAY ANY OF YOUR LAST STATEMENT !

 

[Nikip88]

You are simplifying this beyond any real world situation.

From what I gather it saves no one any money, second hand tobacco smoke is more harmful and in the end you are forcing your own beliefs onto others by the threat of having their children starve.

Don't be a fascist, it's unbecoming.

Who ever said i wanted peoples children to starve? I was just asking for others opinions...

 

[J.Wilkins]

[QUOTE="Nikip88, post: 39198418, member: 406597"YOU'RE WELCOME. !!!!! BC NO WHERE IN MY OP DID I SAY ANY OF YOUR LAST STATEMENT !][/QUOTE]

Actually you did say that your children benefitted from a social program and per your statement you would like to deny other children of that because of the actions of their parents.

Don't get me wrong, Blackjack200 is still a twat that is best ignored but he's got a point.

 

[Commodus]

It sounds good in theory, but in practice it's pretty scummy.

To expand upon what others have said: this is really about feeding into the "welfare queen" myth that Republican supporters hold so dear. It's not that there are no poor people who squander government assistance on drugs. Rather, it's that the number of abuses are so small that testing becomes more about shaming poor people and delaying when they get help.

Most people on assistance are too busy worrying about having a roof over their head and food for their family to blow that money on drugs -- instead of wasting money on testing, let's put it into programs that provide more education and job opportunities.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Who ever said i wanted peoples children to starve? I was just asking for others opinions...

You asked a question and then said, and I quote you directly from your second post in this thread: "I am personally all for it.".

Certainly you are older than 8 and can understand that such an action/restriction would come with the consequence that their children would starve as a result from their parents being denied funds?

I'm trying to be real nice here and not call you out for something you probably didn't even think through but if you persist in this ignorant rambling crap I will.

 

[Nikip88]

[QUOTE="Nikip88, post: 39198418, member: 406597"YOU'RE WELCOME. !!!!! BC NO WHERE IN MY OP DID I SAY ANY OF YOUR LAST STATEMENT !]

Actually you did say that your children benefitted from a social program and per your statement you would like to deny other children of that because of the actions of their parents.

Don't get me wrong, Blackjack200 is still a twat that is best ignored but he's got a point.[/QUOTE]

So i agree that in my approach to understand other ppls views and expand my own ibsee what you mean . that punishing the parents means the children suffer. Which i wouldnt want. Thank you

 

[Sunburn74]

Let's do fat and smoking testing as well. And also let's test for out of marriage sex whilst we're floating dumb ideas.

 

[Moonbeam]

Soon we will have the technical capacity to install electronic devices in every person born by law that can monitor our lives for any actions whatsoever. All we will need is a list of the proper offences we deem to be offensive and have those programmed in. Those who are in violation can via electronic signal receive an immediate lethal injection. We won't need to depend on the threat of eternal damnation. We can have instant karma instead. It will be a conservative wet dream at least for the first month of the program before the mass extinction event.

 

[J.Wilkins]

So i agree that in my approach to understand other ppls views and expand my own ibsee what you mean . that punishing the parents means the children suffer. Which i wouldnt want. Thank you

There you go, welcome to the forum.

Now the second question is, is it economically feasible to drug test all welfare recipients and if we should do that, why not drug test CEO's of companies that get subsidies and ALL elected officials?

Well it might seem like a great idea from a sort of "justice" perspective but in reality it would cost many times more than it would ever save.

So it's not economically feasible and it produces horrid results in some cases... That makes it a bad idea all around.

Note that this does NOT mean that in cases where parental neglect because of drugs we shouldn't use whatever means we can to help those parents, it just means that casting such a wide net will catch very few and restricting welfare even in those cases is not a good solution.

Better to keep the net small and help those that need help.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Soon we will have the technical capacity to install electronic devices in every person born by law that can monitor our lives for any actions whatsoever. All we will need is a list of the proper offences we deem to be offensive and have those programmed in. Those who are in violation can via electronic signal receive an immediate lethal injection. We won't need to depend on the threat of eternal damnation. We can have instant karma instead. It will be a conservative wet dream at least for the first month of the program before the mass extinction event.

If by soon you mean not in this century then yeah, soon. Also, it would have to be agreed upon or you have to scrap every last bit of the constitution because if you don't have the rights to your own bodily integrity then you have no rights what so ever.

I prefer it to be a case of people seeking help and getting help.

 

[Blackjack200]

Don't get me wrong, Blackjack200 is still a twat that is best ignored but he's got a point.

I love you too, bitch. Eventually you'll figure out that I'm right about everything else too.

lol, you probably won't.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I love you too, bitch. Eventually you'll figure out that I'm right about everything else too.

lol, you probably won't.

Piss off, fascist.

 

[Nikip88]

I agree that government and state officials

There you go, welcome to the forum.

Now the second question is, is it economically feasible to drug test all welfare recipients and if we should do that, why not drug test CEO's of companies that get subsidies and ALL elected officials?

Well it might seem like a great idea from a sort of "justice" perspective but in reality it would cost many times more than it would ever save.

So it's not economically feasible and it produces horrid results in some cases... That makes it a bad idea all around.

Note that this does NOT mean that in cases where parental neglect because of drugs we shouldn't use whatever means we can to help those parents, it just means that casting such a wide net will catch very few and restricting welfare even in those cases is not a good solution.

Better to keep the net small and help those that ne

There you go, welcome to the forum.

Now the second question is, is it economically feasible to drug test all welfare recipients and if we should do that, why not drug test CEO's of companies that get subsidies and ALL elected officials?

Well it might seem like a great idea from a sort of "justice" perspective but in reality it would cost many times more than it would ever save.

So it's not economically feasible and it produces horrid results in some cases... That makes it a bad idea all around.

Note that this does NOT mean that in cases where parental neglect because of drugs we shouldn't use whatever means we can to help those parents, it just means that casting such a wide net will catch very few and restricting welfare even in those cases is not a good solution.

Better to keep the net small and help those that need help.

J.wilkins....
I appreciate the replys and the way you explain them so thank you. Unlike blackjack here whos apparently just right about everything.. hes from jersey city. Thats prob why hes grumpy. Ill forgive him j/k you dont have to attack. Its called a joke

 

[Nikip88]

I agree that government and state officials

J.wilkins....
I appreciate the replys and the way you explain them so thank you. Unlike blackjack here whos apparently just right about everything.. hes from jersey city. Thats prob why hes grumpy. Ill forgive him j/k you dont have to attack. Its called a joke

 

[IronWing]

Meh, if a stoner writes good legislation who cares if the stoner is a stoner?

 

[J.Wilkins]

.wilkins....
I appreciate the replys and the way you explain them so thank you. Unlike blackjack here whos apparently just right about everything.. hes from jersey city. Thats prob why hes grumpy. Ill forgive him j/k you dont have to attack. Its called a joke

It's interesting to have someone who is interested in learning and having their views challenged on this forum. It's quite rare.

Good talking to ya.

 

[Nikip88]

It's interesting to have someone who is interested in learning and having their views challenged on this forum. It's quite rare.

Good talking to ya.

Nice talking to you too.. just trying to broaden my horizons and views so many thanks. Can learn alot this way

 

[J.Wilkins]

Meh, if a stoner writes good legislation who cares if the stoner is a stoner?

Take a look at the politicians of today... They are not stoners, they are addicts jonesing and need more money which means that they will do anything for anyone who's got the cash to give them.

They are addicted to lobbyists.

 

[Chaotic42]

Meh, if a stoner writes good legislation who cares if the stoner is a stoner?

Because I don't want Doritos Locos Tacos to be mandatory.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Nice talking to you too.. just trying to broaden my horizons and views so many thanks. Can learn alot this way

I like you, I shall kill you last.

(since you are new around here, that is not a threat in any shape or form. It's something I said once and it stuck)