DrDawkinstein Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 How come we didn't think of this sooner? http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=10...LARSDCCLM_UNEWS I'm not a big fan of drug testing when it comes to office jobs (I guess for obvious reasons), but if you are taking money from the government, you should have to follow it's rules. Not sure I'm completely sold on it, but it makes sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Since the government is paying for rent on lots of poor/elderly the building is considered leased to the government. it is illegal to smoke in government buildings as well. So therefore if you get rental assistance, no smoking for you. Right Bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooderson Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 It seems like a great idea and it does make sense...but I agree, not completely sold on whether it would work out or not. Hopefully more on this subject to come soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 It seems like a great idea and it does make sense...but I agree, not completely sold on whether it would work out or not. Hopefully more on this subject to come soon. Didn't read the article, so I have to ask: work? What do you mean "work?" What problem does the enactment hope to solve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 What problem does the enactment hope to solve? The problem of handing other people's hard earned money over to bums who use the money for drugs. While it might be a good idea in theory, I highly doubt the cost/benefit would ever justify it. Not only would they spend far more implementing such a program than they would save by cutting off drug users, they probably never would cut off the drug users in the first place because there would be endless appeals and lawsuits and other b.s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 but if you are taking money from the government, you should have to follow it's rules. But the proposed change is talking about unemployment too -- which, while run by the government, gets funding from companies and employees. Since you had to have had a job to claim unemployment, they're going to try taking money away that you'd already paid into the system. In addition - drug testing isn't free, so where is that money going to come from? Seems bogus to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 it has to be for everyone or tightly controlled and ensured to be completely random...the aclu is ready to pounce on this subject...i can just feel it....my client has a drug dependency that keeps him from working, therefore a drug test is discriminatory towards my client Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 But the proposed change is talking about unemployment too -- which, while run by the government, gets funding from companies and employees. Since you had to have had a job to claim unemployment, they're going to try taking money away that you'd already paid into the system. In addition - drug testing isn't free, so where is that money going to come from? Seems bogus to me. these are the reasons im not sold i agree that it is a great idea for people on welfare/food stamps. why should they get $100 worth of food stamps if they blew $100 on crack? although, i guess if you just smoked $100 worth of crack, you wouldnt be hungry anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 it has to be for everyone or tightly controlled and ensured to be completely random...the aclu is ready to pounce on this subject...i can just feel it....my client has a drug dependency that keeps him from working, therefore a drug test is discriminatory towards my client It goes far deeper than that. There just aren't enough resources. I talked to my wife about it (she's the director of a halfway house and has been in the field for a decade). She brought up a few great points. Not even talking about the cost of testing (tests cost about $6 for the instant cups that test for a few drugs, and if you have to send it to a lab, it costs about $5/drug you test for), there's also the question of children. If the government tests a parent and it comes up postiive, they need to get child protection involved, and we don't have the resources for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 It goes far deeper than that. There just aren't enough resources. I talked to my wife about it (she's the director of a halfway house and has been in the field for a decade). She brought up a few great points. Not even talking about the cost of testing (tests cost about $6 for the instant cups that test for a few drugs, and if you have to send it to a lab, it costs about $5/drug you test for), there's also the question of children. If the government tests a parent and it comes up postiive, they need to get child protection involved, and we don't have the resources for that. Who are you kidding? We have plenty of resources. In fact, Schwarzenegger just opened up Cal Expo to house the homeless in Sacramento. This sets a tremendous precedent in California. If we can spend millions to provide a new temporary place for the homeless to live, clearly we can find the money to help protect children with drug-addicted parents. Time to print more cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 If somebody has gotten so low in their life, that they have to resort to accepting welfare, they shouldn't have a problem in any testing, as I wouldn't. However, people who have been accepting the dole for years may want to clean their shiit up. I think in some cases there should be testing. Thats if the Gov. worker has any salt to them, though thats giving the Gov'mt worker to much credit. Either way, obama will just print more money to fix the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Either way, obama will just print more money to fix the problem. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_yM0wutEGO5E/SXaf...Dollar.Bill.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_yM0wutEGO5E/SXaf...Dollar.Bill.jpg Mao money?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardFan Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Solution I would like to see is to require every recipient to have to report to a center daily from 8a-4p. Have a place for their kids and have job search resources available. Those that want to help themselves can, those who want to do nothing can sit there and be less likely to be nocturnal (assume it will be loud enough that they can't sleep all day), and those that don't show up would lose benefits. The reduction in the rolls would more than pay for the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Solution I would like to see is to require every recipient to have to report to a center daily from 8a-4p. Have a place for their kids and have job search resources available. But I'd miss all my shows! How would I know what to think if the View didn't tell me?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 The less big brother, the better. Many use weed for self medication- instead of taking the drugs the government and pharmaceutical companies push Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 The less big brother, the better. Many use weed for self medication- instead of taking the drugs the government and pharmaceutical companies push thats an entirely different conversation regarding the legalization of marijuana. even though I'm all for the legalization, I still think that as long as it is illegal, people should not be taking advantage of government money to buy illegal drugs. whether it is weed, crack, heroin, whatever. the whole point is, if you want the government to support you, then you must play by it's rules. whatever they are. cant say i disagree too much with that philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Solution I would like to see is to require every recipient to have to report to a center daily from 8a-4p. Have a place for their kids and have job search resources available. Those that want to help themselves can, those who want to do nothing can sit there and be less likely to be nocturnal (assume it will be loud enough that they can't sleep all day), and those that don't show up would lose benefits. The reduction in the rolls would more than pay for the program. So you want to build huge buildings to house over 7% of the countries population? And how do you propse to transport those people to these huge buildings? And where are we getting the money to babysit all of the children of these people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 So you want to build huge buildings to house over 7% of the countries population? You mean like government housing? And how do you propse to transport those people to these huge buildings? Take the bus, ride a bike, or walk? And where are we getting the money to babysit all of the children of these people? Read his plan again. There will be plenty of adults there who can babysit the kids. I know, bad idea expecting people getting free money to actually have to do something for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 You mean like government housing? Government housing isn't fully staffed. Read his plan again. There will be plenty of adults there who can babysit the kids. I know, bad idea expecting people getting free money to actually have to do something for it His plan said to have them job searching, not babysitting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts