bpwallace49 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 with a slightly different spin, that comments becomes, "The unemployment rate among illegal-drug users is 30%". Times are tough all over . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) with a slightly different spin, that comments becomes, "The unemployment rate among illegal-drug users is 30%". Exactly, and should it matter if you can actually hold down a full-time job as a drug user or addict? I don't care. If you earn it, then do whatever you want with it as far as I'm concerned. That article pretty much highlights what I could never bring myself to get into politics... It takes the view that since other people find ways to take advantage of government programs, that that makes it okay, "unconstitutional", and discriminating against the poor here... Okay, how about we focus on eliminating any and all waste, where not subsidizing drug habits is a great place to start. That doesn't mean that the government doesn't frequently give a free pass to those with the means, but what else is new? Not excusing that, but this "everyone should be free to take and exploit because those in power exploit" does nothing but create more people suckling at the government's teet, expecting to get something for nothing... Life isn't supposed to work that way whether you're a corporation asking for a bailout for your ponzi schemes, or asking for someone to pay your bills and feed your kids. Edited August 30, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted September 29, 2011 Author Share Posted September 29, 2011 An offer legislators can’t refuse — or can they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 An offer legislators can’t refuse — or can they? God bless the Republican Nanny State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I guess my stance on this revolves around how much this costs. I don't think that it needs to be a cost saver, I just believe in it in principle. I'd suggest that many of the "clean" tests are masked (which costs some dough) and that many of the people who ticked the test will ultimately be nabbed. As a pot-head myself, I don't have a problem with a lot of recreational drugs, but I do have a problem with purchasing them on the state's dime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) I don't have a problem drug testing welfare recipients. I just don't think a positive test should result in the termination of benefits - the refusal to accept treatment should. The economic cost savings are irrelevant to me, but I appreciate and agree with the principle. To quote Spearhead, "I don't wanna pay for anotha brotha's wine." Edited September 30, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.