It is currently Mon Nov 25, 2024 12:24 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 421 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Image


Whether you think drug testing is the grooviest or the worst, there is a false assumption in this statement.

Ive seen way too many smart people post this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92068
Location: To the left of my post
I wouldn't be bragging that Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri are the first ones to do it. Give me a state that matters and I'll consider your gif.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
rogers park bryan wrote:
Image


Whether you think drug testing is the grooviest or the worst, there is a false assumption in this statement.

Ive seen way too many smart people post this.


Well, instead of leaving us at this cliffhanger of a post, why don't you tell us what that false assumption is?

I'll take a stab.....it is assuming that all people on "welfare" are able to work or that all people on "welfare" buy illegal drugs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 29260
Location: Parts Unknown
pizza_Place: Frozen
I haven't taken one drug test in my life...

_________________
This is my signature...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43570
And there's also this lovely tidbit.

Quote:
No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

MIAMI — Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

“Many states are considering following Florida’s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn’t,” said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. “Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t save money, as was proposed.”

This week, Georgia instituted a nearly identical law, with supporters saying it would foster greater personal responsibility and save money. As in Florida, the law is expected to draw a legal challenge. The Southern Center for Human Rights, based in Atlanta, said it expected to file a lawsuit once the law takes effect in the next several months. A number of other states are considering similar bills.

The Florida civil liberties group sued the state last year, arguing that the law constituted an “unreasonable search” by the government, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In issuing a temporary injunction in October, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Federal District Court scolded lawmakers and said the law “appears likely to be deemed a constitutional infringement.”

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.


And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.

But supporters of the law said four months of numbers did little to discredit an effort they said was based on common sense. Drug users, no matter their numbers, should not be allowed to use taxpayer money, they said.

“We had to stop allowing tax dollars for anybody to buy drugs with,” said State Representative Jimmie T. Smith, a Republican who sponsored the bill last year. Taxpayer savings also come in deterring those drug users who would otherwise apply for cash assistance but now think twice because of the law, some argued.

Chris Cinquemani, the vice president of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based public policy group that advocates drug testing and recently made a presentation in Georgia, said more than saving money was at stake.

“The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected,” he said, “that our money wasn’t going to addicts, that taxpayer generosity was being used on diapers and Wheaties and food and clothing.”

Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, who supported the measure last year, agreed.

“Governor Scott maintains his position that TANF dollars must be spent on TANF’s purposes — protecting children and getting people back to work,” said Jackie Schutz, the governor’s deputy press secretary.

Last month, Mr. Scott signed into law another drug testing measure, this one permitting state agencies to randomly test up to 10 percent of their employees. The tests can be conducted every 90 days and agencies can fire or discipline employees if they test positive for drugs.

The law, which the civil liberties group said it believes is unconstitutional, takes effect in July. The courts have largely upheld drug testing for workers with public safety jobs.


I remember seeing on TV Governnor Rick Scott also refusing to take a drug test. I wonder what he's hiding.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I wouldn't be bragging that Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri are the first ones to do it. Give me a state that matters and I'll consider your gif.

It just annoys me that people dont read it and think about it before they post it (Yes, I realize the irony of someone with 30K posts saying that, but nevertheless)


Why would a person think drug testing is unconstitutional for welfare but think its' fine for work?

Answer: They dont

Anyone who truly finds it unconstitutional probably thinks its unconstitutional across the board


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
SomeGuy wrote:

Well, instead of leaving us at this cliffhanger of a post, why don't you tell us what that false assumption is?

Because Cliffhangers are fun!


It was a pretty good little cliffhanger post, if I do say so myself


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
rogers park bryan wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:

Well, instead of leaving us at this cliffhanger of a post, why don't you tell us what that false assumption is?

Because Cliffhangers are fun!


It was a pretty good little cliffhanger post, if I do say so myself


I was waiting for something to fly out at me and make me shit myself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Nomination denied. Welfare is not a right/entitlement. It should not be given to people who are only enabled by welfare to help feed their drug habits.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19045
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
It's similar to the old adage of, "If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about." No one is trying to curb drug use among welfare recipients the idea is to keep people from applying for assistance at all.

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 29260
Location: Parts Unknown
pizza_Place: Frozen
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Nomination denied. Welfare is not a right/entitlement. It should not be given to people who are only enabled by welfare to help feed their drug habits.


Image

_________________
This is my signature...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 39560
Location: Barfagloggle, Indiana
pizza_Place: Pizza Hut
SomeGuy wrote:
I was waiting for something to fly out at me and make me shit myself.

My fist flying towards your face would certainly cause such a reaction.

_________________
Kid Cairo's Boers & Bernstein YouTube Channel

Kid Cairo: 2013 March Madness Tournament Winner!

"Cowabunga? Cowa fucking piece of dog shit! This game is diarrhea coming out of my dick!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Nomination denied. Welfare is not a right/entitlement. It should not be given to people who are only enabled by welfare to help feed their drug habits.

That does not in any way address the Douchebag in question.


Try reading it and then thinking about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:26 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
It is a douchebag answer, though.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
I see both sides, but why stop at welfare for the poor? How about hair samples from these wealthy recipients getting agriculture. Welfare or corporate welfare?

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
312player wrote:
I see both sides, but why stop at welfare for the poor? How about hair samples from these wealthy recipients getting agriculture. Welfare or corporate welfare?

Or not at all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
Agreed,, but why target the poor only?

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32067
pizza_Place: Milano's
gee, and i wonder if there's any kind of association between the government officials supporting it and the drug testing companies. couldn't be, i'd be shocked....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
312player wrote:
Agreed,, but why target the poor only?

Im not sure what you mean.

Im saying No drug testing at all, for anyone.


Target no one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43570
rogers park bryan wrote:
312player wrote:
Agreed,, but why target the poor only?

Im not sure what you mean.

Im saying No drug testing at all, for anyone.


Target no one.

So who should we be targeting?

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33067
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
I can't stand government invasions of privacy, so I hate this idea. I wish these folks would focus on better education and making our country more competitive to help reduce the welfare roles. We keep trying to solve the systems of the disease instead of attacking the cause.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
What else could that mean? I agree with you....but if testing is going to happen...why not test everyone getting subsidies?

Your posts are confusing lately, you start a dbotw Manning thread and halfway in say his qb rating is what it always is.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 3272
Location: Woodstock (not the trailer part)
pizza_Place: Jobu
312player wrote:
Agreed,, but why target the poor only?
Perhaps I am interpreting this thread incorrectly, but it seems like it would be very difficult to find a stronger advocate for drug testing the poor than Rogers Park Bryan.

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92068
Location: To the left of my post
312player wrote:
Agreed,, but why target the poor only?
I'd test anyone who receives more money from the government than they pay to the government regardless of how much they make.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
312player wrote:
What else could that mean? I agree with you....but if testing is going to happen...why not test everyone getting subsidies?

Well, Im saying no testing at all and you reply "why target the poor"

Im thinking best case scenario. If there HAS to be testing, yes it should be fair. But there doesnt have to be.


312player wrote:
Your posts are confusing lately, you start a dbotw Manning thread and halfway in say his qb rating is what it always is.

Right. His playoff rating is what it always is (88.4) which is way lower than his normal record setting regular season ratings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
Test nobody or test all imo

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
2 states have already legalized cannabis, and as many as seven more may follow suit in 2014. Will companies/gov't still insist on drug testing people when it's legal? Just stop this nonsense now, as it's nothing more than a tool for class warfare.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32067
pizza_Place: Milano's
immessedup17 wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been answered...but why would someone be 100% against drug testing?

It helps give the company an idea if you might be a fuck-up. Makes sense to me.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
immessedup17 wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been answered...but why would someone be 100% against drug testing?

It helps give the company an idea if you might be a fuck-up. Makes sense to me.





Piss test unfairly target marijuana smokers. I know several coke heads n alcoholics who are fuck ups...they just piss clean.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
It is legal in 16 states @ chus

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 421 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group