Interesting.....
I guess by this logic we can only assume that anyone who refuses a drug test, Breathalyzer, or to give DNA must be guilty of something.
Interesting.....
I guess by this logic we can only assume that anyone who refuses a drug test, Breathalyzer, or to give DNA must be guilty of something.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
Because pilots and baseball players voluntarily enter into private contracts with privately owned companies? Just a hunch..
Of course not, but it's highly likely that anyone turning down one of those even though it would cost them their income are turning them down because they think that test will incriminate them.
IMO the exception in your list is the DNA test. There are probably quite a few people that would turn down DNA tests on principle, but almost everyone agrees to take drug screenings when they accept a job offer. Every company I've worked for has stated that refusal to take a drug test will result in termination (or withdrawal of the job offer).
The number of people that would turn down a drug test on principle alone, even if it cost them their income, is statistically insignificant.
People voluntarily choose to steal from their fellow citizens by taking welfare since we all know that taxes are theft and since welfare is paid for through taxes anyone getting welfare is a thief who must be treated in the most dehumanizing way possible.
Maybe make them wear a scarlet W on their clothes so we all know who they are? Before they can take welfare maybe we should confiscate all their possessions and sell them to pay for the cost of their new welfare approved clothing. Give them a cell phone that can only dial the local job center and is set to randomly berate them with self help messages that can't be disabled.
/s
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
But the contract isn't with a privately owned company, is it?
Suppose the IRS required some kind of test before you were allowed to take income tax deductions? Like maybe a credit check? Much better analogy.
Yes, you can always choose to waive your rights. Your rights also only come into play between you and the government. Private contracts are another matter entirely.
IRS DOES require a "test" to take deductions, but they don't have the workforce to enforce that test on everyone, which is why audits happen based on suspicious activity. To make an apples to apples comparison the IRS audits are actually based on suspicious behavior (ignoring the scandals of course) and not just someone from the IRS asking three simple questions that should obviously only be answered one way.
If you actually read my posts in this thread I'm not advocating for the drug tests. I'm saying the implementation of the tests is stupid and the interpretation of the results in this article is moronic.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
Spare me your Randite bullshit. Thieves don't fill out applications.
If you have a problem with welfare fundamentally, take it up with Congress. In the meantime, pretty much anyone who walked away from their upside down government backed mortgage in the past few years must be a thief too.
However, you can't agree to terms that violate the law. Technically you CAN agree to them but the enforcement of those terms isn't legal so at a minimum that portion of the contract is void. For example, most non-compete agreements are entirely unenforceable in certain states, especially if you didn't accept money specifically for the non-compete and not your work at that job.
Last edited:
They never read the article, never read any of the posts by the few who did, and jumped on the bandwagon calling everyone else stupid. On top of that, it's a thread started by a guy who's well on his way to becoming one of the legendary shit flinging monkeys of P&N. I couldn't make up a story this absurd.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
You're missing that it's ThinkProgress, a very proggie feeltank dedicated to propagating the welfare state.
The point isn't to save money, at least initially. The point is to keep welfare recipients from doing the things that keep them from ever being more than welfare recipients.
+1
etrigan420
Golden Member
- Oct 30, 2007
- 1,723
- 1
- 71
You give yourself too little credit then. It's really simple to jump onboard the Conservo-Bandwagon-To-Nowhere-With-Stops-In-Smaller-Government-and-Money-Saving-Junction.
-Make up a "problem". Here, it's "All of our Welfare recipients are on welfare", in the past it's been "election fraud", "global warming is a hoax", etc. etc....you get it.
-Then come up with a "solution" to that "problem" that:
a. Doesn't even solve the "problem" in the first place
b. Costs more to implement than the "problem" could possibly recoup
c. (and my favorite) Runs afoul of federal law
Mix and repeat. VIOLA!!! CONSERVOTARD BABA GHANOUSH!!!
Serves 5, so make sure your donations per plate are pretty high...
The partisan hackery in this forum amazes and amuses me.
Guys, it's not really that hard to step away from your party and form your own opinions on individual issues and to analyze political "news" logically regardless as to which party it makes look bad.
Let me sum this up, this article makes both major parties look like idiots.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
Just giving some perspective here. Liberals can call 5 out of 10 a 1% ratio and still call conservatives retards.
So now you are for all three of the "solutions".
Since when did liberals care how much something cost? (Can never throw enough money at education)
Since when do liberals care if the solution actually solves the problem. (Welfare itself -- this has led to the replacement of the father figure for blacks since its inception.)
And especially (c), your favorite, when do liberals care about federal law? (Border issues, anyone?)
They have always cared about all of those things. Since presumably you do too, I assume you oppose this drug testing, right?
You do realize that refusing a breathalyzer test is essentially considered to make you guilty right?
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/minnesota.htm
At the very least it seems to carry some pretty stiff penalties.
I would be against it if it is truly proven that it is ineffective or not necessary. Have there been HONEST studies showing drug use before and after the testing was implemented? Do we know for sure that people aren't just gaming the system to show that they aren't using drugs prior to taking the test? If there is a better method to provide help to people via welfare without it being abused, I am all for it.
Did you read and understand the article that is at the heart of this thread? Did you note that 1 in 6 of the people tested were indeed using drugs, not 1 in 800? Do you understand that another 4 of those refused the test and gave up their benefits? The 4 that chose to refuse testing could have been taking a moral stand based on their deeply held convictions, or they might have refused due to prior convictions. My guess is the second one.
So you are assuming the only purpose of drug tests is to save money?
Also how often is the test required?
Out of 4086 people 108 failed and 40 declined.
Cost was $118,140. So $118,140/148 = $798 needing to be saved per failed drug test.
So while if it was monthly you would likely not be saving money purely on TANF(but quite possibly would if you include food stamps and medicaid). If it was only randomly every couple months you would.
And of course here comes the avalanche of excuses. The policy was stupid, invasive, and a waste of money.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter