Cowboyz1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Sound reasonable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I didn't read the whole article... so there might be something objectionable in there... as good ideas are usually co-oped with bad ideas from people on the fringe... with that said... so long as there isn't something else slipped in.... I agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 would cost too many politicians too many votes to ever be implemented on a large scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Perfectly rational to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Perfectly rational . Probably why it won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 ACLU ----> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Slightly tangential story, but what the hell: The company that owned the Tropicana casino in AC was trying desperately to sell the property, and until they could find a buyer, they wanted to spend as little money as possible on it. They cut down spending any way they could. They went so far as to lay off 100 security guards. The NJCCC (Casino Control Commission) found out about this and told them if they didn't add more security they were going to close the casino's doors. So, the Trop called back all 100 security guards and offered to rehire them. Only 25% could be re-hired. The rest failed the drug test. True story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 ACLU ----> I could see them having a problem with random drug tests. But I don't see any rational objection to at least an initial "pre-screening" or annual drug test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Never mind this sounds crazy expensive and like yet another program for our government to fund... There needs to be a treatment program associated with this testing IMO. About the last thing our society needs is addicts cut off from the gubbment check robbing the populace for their next fix. If you can identify people who need treatment and get them the treatment, fine, but otherwise this sounds like a case of the road to hell paved with good intentions. Edited April 1, 2009 by The Irish Doggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I'm confused. Don't companies pay the states some money for unemployment or does that all come out of the tax payers pocket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Never mind this sounds crazy expensive and like yet another program for our government to fund... There needs to be a treatment program associated with this testing IMO. About the last thing our society needs is addicts cut off from the gubbment check robbing the populace for their next fix. If you can identify people who need treatment and get them the treatment, fine, but otherwise this sounds like a case of the road to hell paved with good intentions. I guess we don't need to ask where you stand on the "clean needles for addicts" debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I like it but don't think it will save a great deal of money, as testing is fairly expensive if you are going to do it often enough to be meaningful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Never mind this sounds crazy expensive and like yet another program for our government to fund... From what I've read of this program, accurate (enough) tests would run about $300 a pop. In many cases that would be less than a month's benefits. The X-factor is what percentage of those receiving benefits would fail the tests, such that we don't have to pay them. If the percentage was very low, the program probably wouldn't save money. Though, I would *assume* the percentage would be very high (pun intended) given drug test failure rates for employment screening tests. But what the hell do I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I like it, but what about the kids of these folks that test positive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I like it, but what about the kids of these folks that test positive? If the kids are testing positive then the parents obviously have enough money if they can afford extra drugs for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Will they do this for GM & Chrysler employees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Why don't we drug test our elected officials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 This has got to be the most ironic thing I've ever seen. Telling a company what they can and can't do when we give them bailout money = Have to agree here! Unconstitutional! Communism! Government control!! Telling your citizens what they can and can't do to take welfare money = Great idea! I see no problem with this! Good idea! What country do you people live in that corporations have rights to freedom that exceed those granted to people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) lmao @ that pretzel logic Yes citizens should have a right to do illegal drugs if they want - esp if they're unemployed and money is low! Similar silliness from yahoos like the ACLU guarantee this is doomed. It makes way too much sense. Edited April 2, 2009 by BeeR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 This has got to be the most ironic thing I've ever seen. Telling a company what they can and can't do when we give them bailout money = Have to agree here! Unconstitutional! Communism! Government control!! Telling your citizens what they can and can't do to take welfare money = Great idea! I see no problem with this! Good idea! What country do you people live in that corporations have rights to freedom that exceed those granted to people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 lmao @ that pretzel logic Yes citizens should have a right to do illegal drugs if they want - esp if they're unemployed and money is low! Similar silliness from yahoos like the ACLU guarantee this is doomed. It makes way too much sense. Are you allowed to single out black drivers of fast cars and pull them over to check to see if they are drug dealers? Would you support that? You can't pick a section of the population and selectively prosecute them for crimes. Unless... of course, you're saying that it's as a condition of receiving federal money, you must follow different guidelines than everyone else. And in that case it's it's exactly the same kind of government control that you are vehemently arguing against for corporations 5 threads below this one. So, are you a racist or a hyprocrite? Give me a third option here... a reasoned one, rather than just "Have to agree here ACLU!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I'm confused. Don't companies pay the states some money for unemployment or does that all come out of the tax payers pocket? At least somebody gets it. Unemployment benefits are something that you contribute to. There should be no bar to receiving them if you get laid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Can we get CEO's to apply for welfare just like the poor? Chapelle may have done this already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 At least somebody gets it. Unemployment benefits are something that you contribute to. There should be no bar to receiving them if you get laid off. +1. A different standard would apply to any welfare payments after unemployment runs out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Are you allowed to single out black drivers of fast cars and pull them over to check to see if they are drug dealers? Would you support that? You can't pick a section of the population and selectively prosecute them for crimes. Unless... of course, you're saying that it's as a condition of receiving federal money, you must follow different guidelines than everyone else. And in that case it's it's exactly the same kind of government control that you are vehemently arguing against for corporations 5 threads below this one. So, are you a racist or a hyprocrite? Give me a third option here... a reasoned one, rather than just "Have to agree here ACLU!" Are you a troll or just that stupid? Give me a third option here like "I was on LSD" because what you're saying makes no sense - on several levels. For starters, I have no problem with limiting what corp's can do w/bailout money. eg throwing parties is crossing the line a bit. Second, what part of RANDOM drug testing isn't sinking in? How does that discriminate? And wt* does discrimination have to do w/this discussion anyway? This guy is saying you want money, we don't want it going to supporting your crack habit. You think that's unreasonable? My only problem w/this is that I think this should be for welfare, not unemployment bennies as they were "earned" as stated above, plus that isn't coming from the federal gubmint. Third, you might try a little better identification of another thread than "5 threads below this one." Finally, I have no idea what the hell this "Have to agree here" means, and that's probably a good thing, but pls use English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts