Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients...

Volpone

Volpone

Zombie Hunter
And of course whiny hand-wringing hippies bitch that this would be unfair to unemployed drug addicts.
States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients
Thursday, March 26, 2009

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.
Click to expand...
 
Because then they wouldn't need the Government anymore. And we'd all find out just how much the Government needs them. :S:
 
Fuck yeah. These people are supposed to be looking for work, no? This should help them be able to pass that first drug test.
 
ctmelvital said:
Here's my plan:
Abolish welfare. Legalize drugs. End of plan.
Click to expand...

Some kind of social safetynet is needed IMO. A good chunk of the people are too stupid/lazy/unlucky however you want to look at it to NOT fuck up at some point. I'd rather some kind of workfare/job training program be in place to help them get back on their feet and be productive. Otherwise you end up with a large.... proletariat (in the pre-Marxian sense).
 
Well... it is slightly unfair (and vaguely racist), since it's punishing the druggies while letting the alcoholics off the hook (whites are statistically more likely to abuse alcohol, while blacks are statistically more likely to abuse drugs), but it's still not a terrible idea.
 
14thDoctor said:
Well... it is slightly unfair (and vaguely racist), since it's punishing the druggies while letting the alcoholics off the hook (whites are statistically more likely to abuse alcohol, while blacks are statistically more likely to abuse drugs), but it's still not a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

You have to remember, alcohol is the social icebreaker. There wouldn't be a government without the 3 martini lunch and from the way corporate America and Wall Street seem to have been conducting business, boardroom blitzes as they made stupid corporate decisions and bad business deals seems to have been the norm.
 
14thDoctor said:
Well... it is slightly unfair (and vaguely racist), since it's punishing the druggies while letting the alcoholics off the hook (whites are statistically more likely to abuse alcohol, while blacks are statistically more likely to abuse drugs), but it's still not a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, alcohol use is not a crime. Drug use is.

Now, want to get the law changed? Okay, good deal, lets legalize drug use. However requiring people on government subsistence, to actually follow the law is not racist in any sense.
 
14thDoctor said:
Well... it is slightly unfair (and vaguely racist), since it's punishing the druggies while letting the alcoholics off the hook (whites are statistically more likely to abuse alcohol, while blacks are statistically more likely to abuse drugs), but it's still not a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

Tough shit for them, then. Here's an easy solution: DON'T DO DRUGS.

Oh, wait, that'll never fly -- because it makes plain fucking sense.

I think the real purpose behind the random drug tests, and the statement they're making is, "If you need this money to survive until you're back on your feet, good deal, here you go. If you want it so you can maintain an existence focused on getting high, fuck you."

Not unfair, and not racist.
 
Ancalagon said:
Bullshit, alcohol use is not a crime. Drug use is.

Now, want to get the law changed? Okay, good deal, lets legalize drug use. However requiring people on government subsistence, to actually follow the law is not racist in any sense.
Click to expand...

It is if the laws themselves are racist.

Keep in mind though, I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'd just like it expanded to include alcohol.

The Saint said:
I think the real purpose behind the random drug tests, and the statement they're making is, "If you need this money to survive until you're back on your feet, good deal, here you go. If you want it so you can maintain an existence focused on getting high, fuck you."
Click to expand...
Then why aren't they doing the same thing with alcohol?
 
14thDoctor said:
It is if the laws themselves are racist.
Click to expand...

Drug laws are stupid not racist. Well I'll give you the crack vs powder cocaine, but that is one small part of the drug problem. I wasn't around during the height of the Crack Panic, but Meth (a predominately white n rural drug) is catching TONS of bad press, and the National Sheriffs Organization named it their No. 1 threat (which really pissed off the Bush DoJ who said that pot was the biggest threat).

Keep in mind though, I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'd just like it expanded to include alcohol.
Click to expand...

Why? Alcohol use ISN'T BREAKING THE LAW. Nor can alcohol use in and of itself BAR YOU FROM EMPLOYMENT.
 
Ancalagon said:
Some kind of social safetynet is needed IMO. A good chunk of the people are too stupid/lazy/unlucky however you want to look at it to NOT fuck up at some point. I'd rather some kind of workfare/job training program be in place to help them get back on their feet and be productive. Otherwise you end up with a large.... proletariat (in the pre-Marxian sense).
Click to expand...

That's what family is for. And friends. And your community.

And while I'd also abolish public education, that wouldn't necessarily have to happen if you abolished welfare so the rest doesn't really make sense.
 
ctmelvital said:
That's what family is for. And friends. And your community.
Click to expand...

Ideally yes. But history has shown that this doesn't always work. Hell pretty much the opposite, history has shown that it doesn't work. (And yes, no purely libertarian state has ever really been tried, but that's the same excuse the commies give).

And while I'd also abolish public education, that wouldn't necessarily have to happen if you abolished welfare so the rest doesn't really make sense.
Click to expand...

What do you mean the rest doesn't make sense?



Now be aware I don't support our current welfare system. I'd prefer some kind of JobsCorp/CCC replacement. All I am saying is that in the industrial/post-industrial age some kind of state social safety net is required. Otherwise bad shit happens.
 
Well then, that's what the church is for--whatever church your particular religion is. And Goodwill. And any other private charities out there.
 
Volpone said:
Well then, that's what the church is for--whatever church your particular religion is. And Goodwill. And any other private charities out there.
Click to expand...

Ideally yes. But that ISN'T what happens. What happens is you get an underclass that has no stake in the system, thus would be willing to overthrow it given a charismatic enough leader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top