#Login Register


  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
Home 


Why drug testing of welfare recipients is a bad idea
03-04-2013, 02:57 AM #46
Your Mom Member
Posts:68 Threads:2 Joined:Mar 2013
Wouldn't it it more advantageous to drug test the liars and cheats who control the system?

Also audit who is lobbying said and expose the conflicts of interests.

In short, reclaim the people's vote. Although that is a misnomer as the majority have never really had a say, more like the appearance of having a say.

If you don't have squillions, you do not matter and it has been forever that way.
03-04-2013, 03:02 AM #47
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:22 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  That's a blog how about some real links?


The sources are linked on the blog page.

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 03:04 AM #48
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:23 AM)JollyRoger Wrote:  That is NOT 2% of ALL recipients. That is 2% of two states.

Like i said. I call bullshit and this is propaganda.

Test welfare recipients. if positive. cut their asses OFF.


There is no reason to believe that other states would be substantially different.

I also don't see why a drug user should be denied basic necessities and left to die in the streets. Or worse, left to the streets where their desperation will fuel a crime surge that we taxpayers will have to foot the bill for in the long run anyway.

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 03:12 AM #49
TheMadHatter Member
Posts:15 Threads:1 Joined:Feb 2013
(03-04-2013, 03:04 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 02:23 AM)JollyRoger Wrote:  That is NOT 2% of ALL recipients. That is 2% of two states.

Like i said. I call bullshit and this is propaganda.

Test welfare recipients. if positive. cut their asses OFF.


There is no reason to believe that other states would be substantially different.

I also don't see why a drug user should be denied basic necessities and left to die in the streets. Or worse, left to the streets where their desperation will fuel a crime surge that we taxpayers will have to foot the bill for in the long run anyway.


Because it's not our job to pay for their drugs.

It's obvious now that you are a drug user and you want to be able to collect welfare so that you don't have to work for your own fix, it's not America's job to make sure you get high and if you are getting high why should we pay?

On what moral ground do you have to take from others so that you can get more drugs?
Surge in crime? What exactly do you call taking from someone something they do not chose to give away so you can get drugs? THEFT...
03-04-2013, 03:12 AM #50
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:24 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 02:14 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 01:25 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote:  The welfare system is a joke and a large number of people cheat the system which cost billions as well.

When you test the person and they're positive the check gets cut off which much cheaper than the testing. When you weed out the people cheating the system and people using while on welfare that saves billions.


Cheating the system is fraud, which is already illegal and they can go to prison for it. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

And why shouldn't a drug addict be allowed to eat, or have shelter?

Would you deny a homeless veteran a meal because he smoked a joint in the park last week?

As far as cost goes, you are dead wrong, and you obviously didn't bother to read the article. It costs over $100,000 to weed out just ONE drug user who might get $9000 a year in benefits.

The program in Florida, and earlier in Michigan proved that it costs taxpayers millions more than they saved by denying a few people benefits.

People who shouldn't be denied benefits anyway. Just because someone smoked a little weed or is a hardcore addict has NO bearing whatsoever on their need for assistance. Actually, the real addict has probably even MORE need for the assistance.


It does not matter what I would do so that argument is fallacious.

Welfare is not SSI or veteran pay and I never said anyone was a hardcore addict for smoking weed (another fallacious argument).

If a person has money for drugs they clearly don't need welfare and if they want a good job a drug test is required most of the time anyway.


I didn't say anything about SSI or veteran pay. I said should a homeless veteran be denied welfare because he smoked a joint.

I also didn't say a weed smoker was a hardcore addict. I said that neither should be rejected.

What about someone who grows their own weed? The notion that drug users are spending all of their welfare money on drugs is false anyway. For the most part, drug addictions are funded by selling drugs.

There are plenty of jobs out there that don't drug test. I don't agree with drug testing in the workplace either. But there is still a huge difference between a private company doing a drug test, and the government.

The government must have a warrant, evidence of a crime, before they can search you. You take that away from people on welfare, you might as well just light the entire Constitution on fire and smoke it.

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 03:14 AM #51
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:26 AM)JollyRoger Wrote:  A UA is too easy to beat. I say give them blood and/or hair follicle tests.


Now you're talking even MORE expensive. Not to mention more intrusive. What better way for the government to start their DNA profile of society.

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 03:15 AM #52
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:29 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 02:26 AM)JollyRoger Wrote:  A UA is too easy to beat. I say give them blood and/or hair follicle tests.


I'm still waiting on him to refute my math argument based off of his 2% number even though the blog he linked to was 2.6%


You forgot to multiply by 12. You have to test at least once a month to be effective at all.

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


JollyRoger Show this Post
03-04-2013, 03:15 AM #53
JollyRoger Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-04-2013, 03:04 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 02:23 AM)JollyRoger Wrote:  That is NOT 2% of ALL recipients. That is 2% of two states.

Like i said. I call bullshit and this is propaganda.

Test welfare recipients. if positive. cut their asses OFF.


There is no reason to believe that other states would be substantially different.

I also don't see why a drug user should be denied basic necessities and left to die in the streets. Or worse, left to the streets where their desperation will fuel a crime surge that we taxpayers will have to foot the bill for in the long run anyway.


No reason to believe they wouldn't be either.
JollyRoger Show this Post
03-04-2013, 03:16 AM #54
JollyRoger Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-04-2013, 03:14 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 02:26 AM)JollyRoger Wrote:  A UA is too easy to beat. I say give them blood and/or hair follicle tests.


Now you're talking even MORE expensive. Not to mention more intrusive. What better way for the government to start their DNA profile of society.


I. as a tax payer, would MUCH rather spend 100 dollars on a test than BILLIONS in payouts to recipients who just use the money for drugs. And the occasional hoe.
03-04-2013, 03:18 AM #55
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:33 AM)Beyond Smolensk Wrote:  On the subject of drug testing,what about the police? who are (supposedly) drug tested one time,when they're hired and then never again,because of strong arm union tactics and the police carry high powered weapons and confiscate drugs all the time,wtf's up with that?! but the guy or girl bagging groceries is drug tested,thats f####d up and here in boston two fire fighters were killed while fighting a blaze and both of them had cocaine in their systems and still the fire fighters union refuses to drug test firemen and thats seriously f####d up...

The San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs do not drug test their employees > http://www.kcoy.com/story/21013749/shoul...rug-tested


I knew this guy personally....

Cocaine Cop Gets 3 1/2 Years
Scumbag
David Palazzolo, a 20-year veteran of the Town of Poughkeepsie Police Department, will be out of prison in as little as 3 1/2 years under the terms of his plea bargain arrangement. He pled guilty at the Dutchess County Courthouse this morning to three felony counts stemming from what was originally a 35-count indictment.

The former police officer used his position to protect two known drug dealers in exchange for cocaine. He tipped them off to investigations being conducted, where and when surveillance was being carried out, and even identified undercover narcotics officers and the vehicles they were driving. He illegally accessed the department's computers numerous times in order to glean this information, which he shared with the cocaine kingpins. It was also alleged that he threatened to murder a man who was being held in a jail cell, if the man spoke to investigators about the drug dealers Palazzolo was protecting.

Amid the investigation into his activities, the corrupt cop was suspended but then reinstated and worked for another 4 months before finally retiring to North Carolina in November of 2010. He will still collect his pension. Also charged with drug offenses were his wife Carol, 44, Christopher Reynolds, 49, of the Town of Poughkeepsie and Jesse Roldan, 35, of Wappingers Falls.

David Palazzolo remains free on $100,000 bond pending sentencing on December 1, when he will begins serving 3 1/2 to 10 1/2 years in state prison.

Now I am no expert, but it seems to me that if the shoe was on the other foot so to speak, if it had been a civilian facing these sort of accusations, they would have wound up in prison for a lot longer. Threatening to kill a cop alone would probably be enough to invoke a stiff prison sentence. Not to mention compromising police investigations, tampering with witnesses, bribery, bartering with large amounts of cocaine, and so forth. I have seen numerous cases where someone caught with a small amount of cocaine faces much more prison time. Once again we see that there are two sets of law in this country. One code for police, and another for us, the second-rate citizens. Once again the Dutchess County DA's office proves their incompetence as well.

Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.co...z2MWeH9N4H

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 03:20 AM #56
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:43 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  Try reading post #30...
I did the math for every person 56.6 million total welfare recipients in America.

"Now you also have to realize that the person who was refjected, will now turn to crime in order to survive."

That's where the 2nd amendment comes in.


Ohhhh, so you support the 2nd Amendment but not the 4th. Hypocrite.

People on welfare should give up their 4th Amendment rights and submit to a drug test, because they might be drug addicts.

Gun owners should give up their 2nd Amendment rights because they might use a gun to go out and kill a lot of innocent people.

If I am going to be drug tested at work, people on welfare need to be drug tested too.

If I am not going to carry a gun, you can't either.

People on welfare are druggies.

Gun-owners are violent people.

People on welfare should just go out and get a job.

People should just call the police if they need help.

People on welfare abuse the system.

People who own guns put us all in danger.

Welfare drug testing will force people to stop using drugs.

Banning guns will stop people from killing eachother.

There are ways to get help other than welfare.

There are better alternatives than owning a gun.

I was an addict, I never asked for help.

I have been robbed before, I didn't nee a gun.

People should be forced to go to rehab if they are on drugs.

Gun owners should have to undergo extensive psych exams.

If you want welfare, prove you are clean.

Prove that you need a gun.

Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.co...z2MWf1bfls

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 03:25 AM #57
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:50 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  1. Still waiting for proof not just you saying it.

2. How the hell is driving down a road welfare?
I would really like to hear this argument.

3. Okay I will take a drug test and those that don't want to can just pay less during the year and make up the difference at the end.

4. If they have a job they don't need welfare now do they? (Why would they be starving in the street if they have a job?)
Still waiting on the proof of 2%
I wasn't assuming anything, if they can pass a drug test they can get public assistance.

Your circular logic is interesting though, wrong, but interesting.


If you are using a public roadway, it is funded by tax dollars. Public roads are a public service. If you use a government service, you can be drug tested.

If there was a job for them, they wouldn't be on welfare in the first place.

If you think that 2-4% is wrong, then prove it. Meanwhile, in Florida it was 2.6% and the source was already cited.

Go Google it if you don't believe it.

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 03:27 AM #58
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:57 AM)Your Mom Wrote:  Wouldn't it it more advantageous to drug test the liars and cheats who control the system?

Also audit who is lobbying said and expose the conflicts of interests.

In short, reclaim the people's vote. Although that is a misnomer as the majority have never really had a say, more like the appearance of having a say.

If you don't have squillions, you do not matter and it has been forever that way.


“People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.” -Professor Jason Read, University of Southern Maine

Read more: http://mwwuamerica.blogspot.com/2013/01/...z2MWgnhZIF

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 03:30 AM #59
Your Mom Member
Posts:68 Threads:2 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 03:27 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 02:57 AM)Your Mom Wrote:  Wouldn't it it more advantageous to drug test the liars and cheats who control the system?

Also audit who is lobbying said and expose the conflicts of interests.

In short, reclaim the people's vote. Although that is a misnomer as the majority have never really had a say, more like the appearance of having a say.

If you don't have squillions, you do not matter and it has been forever that way.


“People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.” -Professor Jason Read, University of Southern Maine

Read more: http://mwwuamerica.blogspot.com/2013/01/...z2MWgnhZIF


Exactly. Very nicely put. hug.gif
03-04-2013, 03:31 AM #60
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 03:12 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  Because it's not our job to pay for their drugs.

It's obvious now that you are a drug user and you want to be able to collect welfare so that you don't have to work for your own fix, it's not America's job to make sure you get high and if you are getting high why should we pay?

On what moral ground do you have to take from others so that you can get more drugs?
Surge in crime? What exactly do you call taking from someone something they do not chose to give away so you can get drugs? THEFT...


Ad hominems now? Yeah, that should prove your point, lol.

If you can show that someone is spending welfare money on drugs, that is a crime, and they can be prosecuted. You would also have probable cause for a warrant.

But you don't have the right to take away someone's 4th Amendment rights because someone else is a criminal.

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri





Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com