Richards 0
Recommended Posts
rushmc 18
QuoteWow. That was an earfull and I do not know where to begin to respond to that but here is my best try.
QuoteWhy should my taxes go to help someones dirty little retarded fucking kid! I didn't fuck the nasty skanky whore and knock her slut ass up! Why should I, as a good American, give a damn about anyone in the USA when there are wars to start and people to kill overseas!
I certainly don't know where I said anything so extreme. Did you honestly interpret my arguments to be so extreme or are you deliberately going with the straw man hyperbole routine? I have argued before about why I am willing to pay out of jmy taxes to support the unfortunate, including those who's misfortune is of their own doing provided there is a genuine effort on their part to strive for self reliance. This is not just for altruistic reasons but because I beleive that society does reap long term benefits (in terms of human capital for one example) by having some degree of safety nets.
Holding those that we carry to some degree of accountability is perfectly acceptable and in no way is reflective of the cold hearted "let them starve and freeze" wording that you were trying attribute to me.QuoteI mean, really, to preserve our way of life and to keep up the charade that America is a shinning beacon, it is far better that we give our taxes to terrorist harbouring countries like Pakistan and oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia! It is far more important that we waste billions of dollars and not care about the tools that get their bodies blown apart so that we can keep up the charade that we are fighting "terrorist". Bin laden is just laughing at how stupid americans really are. I mean, really, fuck America and fuck the American people! We are just tools.
Oh right. Because I dare disagree with your extreme views I must clearly be a neo-con fascist chicken hawk who fantasizes about kissing GWB's feet and loves the idea that men and woman are in harms way on my behalf because it makes me feel masculine to beat on my chest about it in a bar.
How on earth did my comments to you lead to a discussion on Iraq?
Hint. When you use a straw man argument try to keep it in perspective so it isn't evident to the entire world. Smaller straw man arguments can slip by undetectedQuoteBetter hope these soldiers who have PTSD blow their fucking scrambled brains out because your tax dollars will have to support them. Better push for legislation to have them all castrated so they do not reproduce or else tax dollars will have to support their retards!
No. Soldiers are injured because they served their country. How is holding welfare recipients accountable equivalent to wanting our wounded veterans to die off because they are too expensive/inconvenient ? (don't respond with evidence of past wrongs by other people towards vets. tell me where it is I gave the impression that I wanted that since those are the words you are putting in my mouth.)QuoteBest push for legislation to gas all homeless people.
Oh even better. Now instead of merely wishing to let the homeless starve, I have apparently stepped up my heinious cruelty and have begun advocating genocide against the poor. You have determined all of this because I have pointed out that people cannot pick and choose when they would like to be an adult ( you know....kid when it comes to taking responsibility for themselves but adult when it comes to following the parents/taxpayers rules). Your capacity for seeing so deep into the underlying insidious intentions behind a comment like mine is unparalleled. Thank god you exposed me for the beast that I am or I would have gone from advocating welfare reform on a discussion forum to carrying out the next holocaust.QuoteWouldn't it be cheaper and more fun to shove a hose down their throats and turn on the gas than to help them back up the ladder.
I have stated numerous times before that I support helping people back up the ladder. I do not however wish to carry people who would rather do nothing but smoke-up, drink, breed and jerk off all on the taxpayers dollar. There is a grey area between two extremes for those that choose not to polarize every debate for lack of a constructive argument. I simply wish to have safegaurds in place to distinguish between those who are using my charity responsibly and those who are wasting my money.QuoteI mean really, when you are above someone else, isn't it the American way to kick them in the face and back down again!
To the best of my knowledge no. That said we could start a new thread and take a poll asking everyone on Dropzone.com if they would enjoy kicking someone when they were down. I suspect you might find that most are not as cold hearted as you would like to portray them.QuoteAmerica does not stand up for it's people as a large percentage of Americans are against Americans in general! I mean really, when the Tsumami hit overseas, Americans pooled their money to help and then shoved it in the face of the rest of the world and bbraggged and bragged and bragged about how "generous and caring" that Americans are but, when the hurricane hit the Gulf coast, Americans gave the finger to those people. Americans said "FUCK YOU" to those people.
You sure hate your own country.QuoteAmericans threaten violence.
The current administration fall short of what I expect in terms of responsible use of power, but I doubt that Americans in General love violence and war. The number of threads on SC alone criticizing the Iraq invasion indicate that many Americans are not comfortable with the current war.QuoteFace it, you know it is true.
Again there you go with the mind reader bit again. Actually it is not true. I have no idea what personal demons are behind that little outburst but you might wish to think take a breather (or put the bottle down before posting). I disagree with you (which does happen from time to time on discussion forums) and offered a contrary point of view which may go against the ethic of strict political correctness (not unheard of in speakers corner) and despite your rant beleive that what I said was both fair and true.
Your not liking my viewpoint does not make me a nazi who takes pleasure in commiting an orgy of cruelty against those less fortunate than myself just because I can.
People like you who go on the attack and portray all who advocate any form of welfare reform as being hatefull neo-fascists actually hurts your cause. People tend to resent being bullied with PC "cry wolf and bully the dissenters into accepting our way by threatenning them with smear attacks if they dare say something we do not wish to hear" and as a result of that develop a tendency to roll their eyes at any complaint. Remember, crying wolf is a short term gain stratregy that ultimately backfires in the long run which is why people only view Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as comedy releif. Now go back and re-read my original post to you, and ask yourself if you might have taken it a tad out of context.
Nicely done but I have to wonder if someone that can go completely off the end even comprehend any of your reply
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
How does not taking the money away help the kids? I don't think a drugged up parent will put their meth addiction aside to get necessary stuff for their kids. I think drug testing for welfare is an excellent idea. If you are self sufficient then I don't give a shit what you do with your paycheck, but when J.Q. Taxpayer is covering your ass you better be spending it on NEEDS and finding a job.
Sky Canyon Wingsuiters
Richards 0
QuoteQuotehere comes the "what about the children?" agruement. i'll go ahead and say it. FUCK THE CHILDREN! i know that's not a very popular stance, but i think we could drastically reduce welfare rolls in one generation IF there was just one generation of children growing up without nanny.gov taking care of them.
Or maybe those kids would add to the problem because they lived in even worse squalor than if their parents were receiving benefits. The kids are not deadbeats. Looking at the human capital requirements for those entering the job market I would prefer not to doom a kids chances from the start just because his parents were useless. I do not mind social nets aimed at giving the offspring of oxygen wasters a fighting chance at breaking the cycle.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteA positive drug test would not constitute proof that your tax dollars were spent on drugs.
No, but it infers that the person is not making the best use of his time while living on the taxpayers dollars which are ideally aimed at helping a person get back on his feet.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteI'd rather have them tested daily for alcohol consumption as alcohol is a far bigger problem amongst welfare receipients. Nicotine is another major problem and why shouldn't they be tested for that as well. Why should my taxes pay for someones beer and cigarettes. If anything testing and monitoring for alcohol should be mandatory.
So is your issue with the idea of a nanny state or is it because your drug of choice is being targetted while some other abuser gets away with it?
QuoteAlcohol, as it is, kills far more people than all of the illegal drugs combine (not including mj as mj is not a deadly drug). Alcohol is responsible for more depression, job loss and family violence. Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in this country today and to allow those who are in a depressing situation to use this drug is a shame. .
Alcohol is way worse than all drugs and kills more people?
Is it that out of every 100,000 drinkers more die than out of every 100,000 drug addicts or is it merely that alcohol which I suspect is used more frequently than all drugs happens to also kill more?
You see, I once heard a similar argument that driving a car is more dangerous than skydiving because more people die each year in car accidents than skydiving accidents.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Actually, it was not directly in response to your comments but sarcasm towards what is often reiterated across the country when subjects such as healthcare, food programs, children programs, veterans unemployed, homeless and the such come about. (I should had removed your name from subject line as I was not directly responding to you.)
How I actually feel about it, no sarcasm, I say test only those who show no progress. Test for drugs, test for alcohol. Bring back the welfare to work program. Use American tax dollars in America only. Stop the exportation of our money to other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel as well as all other countries. Bring manufacturing back to the US and out of China, Mexico and anyother country that US firms ran to. America and its people need to stand up for America and America only. This country has brought so much upon itself and has very little options but to only look out for itself. We have food programs to feed people overseas but balk at giving food aid to the poor here in the US. We have medicine programs for people with AIDS in Africa but balk at helping those here in the US (believe me, I know this firsthand as I have been denied medication over and over again). This country needs to promote a stricter educational guideline (no more summer vacation and no more passing kids who do not meet the standards) and open more avenues to those in the lower economic structure for higher education (more Pell Grants?). How about establishing free learning centers for those who cannot obtain a Pell Grant? For those disabled there is (thanks to President Clinton) the Ticket to Work program ( http://www.yourtickettowork.com/)(I'm waiting for my paperwork as of now to arrive). I would say that it is safe to assume that the vast majority of people on welfare would wish to be off of it. The same with those on SSDI. The problems that I have encountered is the lack of support and the lack of information that would lead a person down the path to self sufficienty. Dealing with government agencies is enough to make one wish to drink (Your comment; or put the bottle down before posting, my reply; I don't drink). I am probably in the position to be more acquainted with the system, particulary with SSDI, than you are. I do not care for being on SSDI. I do run an embroidery and direct to garment printing business from home. I do pay taxes. I am hoping to go back to school. I am hoping to get back to fulltime employment. I personally believe that many others in my position would like to do the samething. I can't imagine why someone would wish to stay on the bottom. I don't like it. I use to make 50k+ back in the 80's and 90's. Curcumstance changed everything for me as it often does for so many others. To put in place a drug screening program for every person on welfare or any of the other programs would be expensive and most likely be more harmful than helpful for those who need a hand up. So, you kick a family off of welfare because the father or mother came up positive for THC. What then? Do they just dissappear? POOF!!!! No more problem? Would this record of a positive urine follow them and bar them from getting work? What real good would it do? My suggestion is that all who are able body and even those with disability be directed into a back to work program. Those who are not showing progress should then be further evaluated and then directed in a more positive direction. Drug testing should only come about if drug use is clearly shown. Not every person who does poorly is a drug addict. I know drug users you do very well. You would never suspect that these people use coke and pills or even drink heavily. Lumping all welfare receipients into a suspected drug user catagory is not the right thing to do and the outcome could be far more damaging.
How I actually feel about it, no sarcasm, I say test only those who show no progress. Test for drugs, test for alcohol. Bring back the welfare to work program. Use American tax dollars in America only. Stop the exportation of our money to other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel as well as all other countries. Bring manufacturing back to the US and out of China, Mexico and anyother country that US firms ran to. America and its people need to stand up for America and America only. This country has brought so much upon itself and has very little options but to only look out for itself. We have food programs to feed people overseas but balk at giving food aid to the poor here in the US. We have medicine programs for people with AIDS in Africa but balk at helping those here in the US (believe me, I know this firsthand as I have been denied medication over and over again). This country needs to promote a stricter educational guideline (no more summer vacation and no more passing kids who do not meet the standards) and open more avenues to those in the lower economic structure for higher education (more Pell Grants?). How about establishing free learning centers for those who cannot obtain a Pell Grant? For those disabled there is (thanks to President Clinton) the Ticket to Work program ( http://www.yourtickettowork.com/)(I'm waiting for my paperwork as of now to arrive). I would say that it is safe to assume that the vast majority of people on welfare would wish to be off of it. The same with those on SSDI. The problems that I have encountered is the lack of support and the lack of information that would lead a person down the path to self sufficienty. Dealing with government agencies is enough to make one wish to drink (Your comment; or put the bottle down before posting, my reply; I don't drink). I am probably in the position to be more acquainted with the system, particulary with SSDI, than you are. I do not care for being on SSDI. I do run an embroidery and direct to garment printing business from home. I do pay taxes. I am hoping to go back to school. I am hoping to get back to fulltime employment. I personally believe that many others in my position would like to do the samething. I can't imagine why someone would wish to stay on the bottom. I don't like it. I use to make 50k+ back in the 80's and 90's. Curcumstance changed everything for me as it often does for so many others. To put in place a drug screening program for every person on welfare or any of the other programs would be expensive and most likely be more harmful than helpful for those who need a hand up. So, you kick a family off of welfare because the father or mother came up positive for THC. What then? Do they just dissappear? POOF!!!! No more problem? Would this record of a positive urine follow them and bar them from getting work? What real good would it do? My suggestion is that all who are able body and even those with disability be directed into a back to work program. Those who are not showing progress should then be further evaluated and then directed in a more positive direction. Drug testing should only come about if drug use is clearly shown. Not every person who does poorly is a drug addict. I know drug users you do very well. You would never suspect that these people use coke and pills or even drink heavily. Lumping all welfare receipients into a suspected drug user catagory is not the right thing to do and the outcome could be far more damaging.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
QuoteNicely done but I have to wonder if someone that can go completely off the end even comprehend any of your reply
Oh, another who does not recognize sarcasm
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
Richards 0
QuoteHow I actually feel about it, no sarcasm, I say test only those who show no progress.
We might wish to be selective who we apply it to. Someone with an impeccable employment record who simply had a bad year may be given a miss (but tested if he shows no progress). It should be the default position that we can and we then do not have to justify it to those we test.
QuoteBring back the welfare to work program.
Good idea. Also require applicants who don't have a high school diploma to attend adult education.
QuoteUse American tax dollars in America only. Stop the exportation of our money to other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel as well as all other countries. Bring manufacturing back to the US and out of China, Mexico and anyother country that US firms ran to. America and its people need to stand up for America and America only.
On a macro scale that's not much different than the cold indiference you criticise. Foreign aid is a decent thing to do and I do not have a problem with it. That said, the US should take a closer look at it's home grown despair.
QuoteWe have food programs to feed people overseas but balk at giving food aid to the poor here in the US. We have medicine programs for people with AIDS in Africa but balk at helping those here in the US (believe me, I know this firsthand as I have been denied medication over and over again).
You need to realize that people in some countries die in massive numbers just due to lack of clean drinking water (and certainly lack of food). The US poverty issue is no-where near that disastrous
QuoteThis country needs to promote a stricter educational guideline (no more summer vacation and no more passing kids who do not meet the standards) and open more avenues to those in the lower economic structure for higher education (more Pell Grants?).
Yes stricter guidelines are critical and we do need to stop passing kids through the system without them having to meet a standard.
As for banning summer vacation I have some nephews who would have your head on a platter if you took their summer break so don't go there!
Not to mention summer recreation allows for some degree of social development. QuoteHow about establishing free learning centers for those who cannot obtain a Pell Grant? For those disabled there is (thanks to President Clinton) the Ticket to Work program ( http://www.yourtickettowork.com/)(I'm waiting for my paperwork as of now to arrive). I would say that it is safe to assume that the vast majority of people on welfare would wish to be off of it. The same with those on SSDI. The problems that I have encountered is the lack of support and the lack of information that would lead a person down the path to self sufficienty. Dealing with government agencies is enough to make one wish to drink
I am not familiar with those programs but on the whole I agree entirely with programs that promote self reliance and I have frequently advocated more attainable education for people of lower socie-economic backgrounds. I see it as an investment in our human capital. When we retire we want to make sure that the young people runing the country are educated.
QuoteYour comment; or put the bottle down before posting, my reply; I don't drink
What the fuck kind of skydiver are you?
QuoteTo put in place a drug screening program for every person on welfare or any of the other programs would be expensive and most likely be more harmful than helpful for those who need a hand up.
I have been on workers comp before (for about 6 weeks) and I recall I had to have follow up doctor appointments to be forwarded to workers comp. I did not feel hurt or violated or that I was being lumped in with abusers. In effect I was sitting at home and being paid via tax dollars. They had a right to ensure that I was not milking it. I realized that they had to make sure I was not abusing the system and appreciated that since by keeping abusers off of it they were able to provide better services to the ones who needed it. Supervison is not the same as kicking someone who is down.
QuoteSo, you kick a family off of welfare because the father or mother came up positive for THC. What then? Do they just dissappear? POOF!!!! No more problem?
My answer differs depending on whether or not there are kids involved. If someone is caught using drugs then they can be given a choice. Be cut off or take mandatory drug rehab. If the kids have a drug abusing parent who is not working then they would be better off in a foster home.
QuoteNot every person who does poorly is a drug addict. I know drug users you do very well. You would never suspect that these people use coke and pills or even drink heavily. Lumping all welfare receipients into a suspected drug user catagory is not the right thing to do and the outcome could be far more damaging.
No one is saying all welfare users are drug abusers. There is correllation between the two and it is fair to have a provision whereby we can supervise to minimize abuse. If I needed welfare (and I realize it can happen to anyone) I would not feel offended by being asked to provide a urine test. I don't agree that it would hurt more than it would help. The only concern anyone could really have is that now they have to stay clean. There is no real reason to complain. This argument that we are lumping all welfare recipients together does not hold water and is deliberately used by anti-poverty activists to stir up feelings of miscontent between the poor and those who's job it is to allocate charitable resources in a responsible manner.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
QuoteSo is your issue with the idea of a nanny state or is it because your drug of choice is being targetted while some other abuser gets away with it?
I have no drug of choice as I do not use drugs. I might, on a very rare occassion (once or twice a year and only one shot for the taste as I do not like the feeling that alcohol brings on) have a shot of burbon but, I am not a drinker and dispise people who drink daily. I seldom smoke marijuana and when I do it is on a medicinal level only as it helps me to eat and keep the food down (I really hate vomiting). I am against drug testing in the form of a net over a wide spectrum of people. I note that when people speak of drug testing that they are excluding alcohol when alcohol is an extremely dangerous and powerful drug. If you want to test welfare recipients for drugs then alcohol should also be included.
QuoteIs it that out of every 100,000 drinkers more die than out of every 100,000 drug addicts or is it merely that alcohol which I suspect is used more frequently than all drugs happens to also kill more?
Saying that the reason is because more people use alcohol only shows that alcohol is a far greater problem. Personally, I do not care if you drink or not. I don't care if you drink all night and then gear up in the morning to jump hungover. I could careless if you are killed by doing so. (I might add that I prefer that a person not jump if hungover as I really do not wish for anyone to die. That, and also, I really do care.) I won't jump with a hungover person as it is a danger to me. If I notice that a person is drunk or even smell beer on them, I'll say something. I do care if you drink and get in a car to drive. If I see you driving from a dz while drunk, I'll call the police to arrest you so that no innocent person dies. I personally hate drunks and those who binge drank at a dz. They are obnoxious and make complete idiots of themselves. They are argumentive and can be a danger to others. I might add that a person not jump if hungover as I really do not wish for anyone to die.
As for drug deaths (from the CDC);
In 2004, a total of 30,711 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States (Tables 21 and 22). The category ‘‘drug-induced causes’’ includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. The category excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use. Also excluded are newborn deaths, which are due to mother’s drug use.
Alcohol;
In 2004, a total of 21,081 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 23 and 24). The category ‘‘alcohol-induced causes’’ includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, but also accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome.
The PDF is titled Deaths: Final Data for 2004
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
I personally think that "net casting" programs are wrong and do no good overall as they often lead to more problems. I do agree that the minority that abuse the system need to be identified but, also believe that programs should be utilized to provide help for them. That may appear to sound like liberal baby sitting but, consider what may become of those who have no avenues to end their abuse and/or addiction. Merely tossing them into the streets only adds to another problem of homeless, crime and further drug (alcohol included) problems. Pushing them aside (including those you only use marijuana) would lead to further dispair and depression and more deaths by suicide. Suicides out number alcohol and drug deaths http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm although, I would suspect that alcohol and drug addiction would be a contributing factor in a number of those deaths. More so with alcohol.
Inconclusion, if a testing program were to be established, it should include the entire gamut of abused substances, including tobacco. Further more, the program should include treatment.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
Richards 0
QuoteI am not a drinker and dispise people who drink daily
Why? If they are not hurting you then what is the problem?
QuoteI note that when people speak of drug testing that they are excluding alcohol when alcohol is an extremely dangerous and powerful drug. If you want to test welfare recipients for drugs then alcohol should also be included.
Fair. If people have their breath tested for alcohol at roadside checks they should also get drug tested.
QuoteI personally hate drunks and those who binge drank at a dz. They are obnoxious and make complete idiots of themselves.
Now you are the one that is generalizing. I know many heavy drinkers who are passive and quiet when they drink.
QuoteInconclusion, if a testing program were to be established, it should include the entire gamut of abused substances, including tobacco.
Has tobacco use been linked with chronic unemployment or failure to show up for work?
QuoteFurther more, the program should include treatment.
It would be nice and I would support that but let us not forget that such a program would be a priviledge not a right.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
QuoteQuoteI am not a drinker and dispise people who drink daily
Why? If they are not hurting you then what is the problem?
My reply: I should clarify that I was a heavy drinker (beer and burbon) for a good number of years. I never missed work, I paid my bills and had nice things but, it did cause problems in my life. I guess "dispise" is harsh and should pull that back. I would hope that a person who drinks heavily on a daily basis will eventually see what it is doing to there body and how it makes them appear to others.QuoteI note that when people speak of drug testing that they are excluding alcohol when alcohol is an extremely dangerous and powerful drug. If you want to test welfare recipients for drugs then alcohol should also be included.
Fair. If people have their breath tested for alcohol at roadside checks they should also get drug tested.
My reply; I agree but may add that passive intake (such as that at a concert or at a party) may lead to an erroneous arrest. I was on Marinol for a number of years. I took 10mg three times a day. The prescription would had maybe proved my innocence but the implication would had been an arrest, jail, the need to hire a lawyer and time in court. Also, merely the presence of the metabolite could lead to an unneccessary arrest due to passive inhalation. A test would have to show a level of 50 ng/ml or higher to be reliable. Even beathalyzer testing for alcohol have been shown to be faulty.QuoteI personally hate drunks and those who binge drank at a dz. They are obnoxious and make complete idiots of themselves.
Now you are the one that is generalizing. I know many heavy drinkers who are passive and quiet when they drink.
My reply; I agree, I did generalize and retract my statement. Some people whom I know are not bad at all when they drink but, I will add, some are obnoxious and do make complete fools of themselves.QuoteInconclusion, if a testing program were to be established, it should include the entire gamut of abused substances, including tobacco.
Has tobacco use been linked with chronic unemployment or failure to show up for work?
My reply; Tobacco has been implicated as a health risk that burdens the healthcare system. It does lead to lost time on the job as well as increase in work provided healthcare premiums. It also is implicated in a number of people who have gone on SSDI due to health related problems that leave them disabled and unemployable.QuoteFurther more, the program should include treatment.
It would be nice and I would support that but let us not forget that such a program would be a priviledge not a right.
My reply; I agree
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
Richards 0
QuoteFair. If people have their breath tested for alcohol at roadside checks they should also get drug tested.
My reply; I agree but may add that passive intake (such as that at a concert or at a party) may lead to an erroneous arrest. I was on Marinol for a number of years. I took 10mg three times a day. The prescription would had maybe proved my innocence but the implication would had been an arrest, jail, the need to hire a lawyer and time in court. Also, merely the presence of the metabolite could lead to an unneccessary arrest due to passive inhalation. A test would have to show a level of 50 ng/ml or higher to be reliable. Even beathalyzer testing for alcohol have been shown to be faulty.
Apparently mouthwash can cause you to fail a breathalyzer (or so I have heard). I am sure there can be flaws in any system and that is why you get a court hearing.
As for passive inhalation, can medical science make no distinction between a guy who was near a few potheads at a concert and a huy who was smoking up. Surely much like alcohol where the test the levels they could determine a benchmark measure whereby they can reasonable say you were directly inhaling it.
QuoteHas tobacco use been linked with chronic unemployment or failure to show up for work?
My reply; Tobacco has been implicated as a health risk that burdens the healthcare system. It does lead to lost time on the job as well as increase in work provided healthcare premiums. It also is implicated in a number of people who have gone on SSDI due to health related problems that leave them disabled and unemployable.
Now we are going on a bit of a tangent. My concerns as stated dealt with people already on welfare using a substance that has been linked with "motivation" issues. I do not care to start testing for every possible thing that could someday potentially with some remote possibility cause a person to be unemployed due to illness. I have known several of the chronic drinkers and tokers. A couple of them were related to me. There is at least inferential evidence that people on welfare who smoke pot (with some regularity) and who drink regularly have a wee tendency to sleep in until about 1 oclock in the afternoon rather frequently. This can be a problem when one is apparently being helped to "climb back up the ladder". I am sure cookies can lead to obesity which 10 years from now could cause the person to be unemployed but in the short term I think it is more productive to deal with more immediate barriers. Has there even been implied evidence that people who smoke a pack a day (but don't drink or use drugs) tend to be unreliable when it comes to getting out of bed in the morning and/or showing up for work?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Quote
I'm opposed to drug testing in/for employment
Why? Even skipping obvious cases like school bus drivers and commercial pilots.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
here comes the "what about the children?" agruement. i'll go ahead and say it. FUCK THE CHILDREN!
I'll play an asshole, and agree with this statement.
For last fifty years we as a human race have been abusing the natural selection process. Which was there for purpose to keep the species healthy and competitive in the environment.
And the results, in my opinion, are very close to total disaster.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
As for passive inhalation, can medical science make no distinction between a guy who was near a few potheads at a concert and a huy who was smoking up. Surely much like alcohol where the test the levels they could determine a benchmark measure whereby they can reasonable say you were directly inhaling it.
Alcohol leaves the body very quickly - can't test for it from more than a day or so in the past. Not true for pot, so how do you know if someone inhaled 2 weeks ago versus breathed smoke yesterday?
As I mentioned earlier, performance is what matters, right? Lots of functional tokers out there. Lots of non functional drunks.
pirana 0
QuoteMaybe welfare recepients should also be monitored for alcohol consumption. They should also be monitored to be sure they do not decide to spend that money on doing a possible tandem jump, going to an amusement park, a movie, buying snack food or fastfood or any type of resturuant (They should be given a list of government approved food and any attempt to buy anyother type of food should result in immediate removal from welfare), they shouldn't be allowed to purchase gasoline for their car as they should be required to sell their car before they recieve welfare. They could easily walk or take a bus. They're rent should be deducted from their alloted amount and sent directly to their landlord. They should be strictly prohibited from taking any kind of vacation. There travel (by bus or foot) should be monitored via GPS to be sure that they go no further than to a job interview. They should be taken off welfare if they are know to smoke cigerettes, cigars, pipe or chew tobacco. Their weight should be taken several times a month to be sure that they are not eating more than the government allows for them. They should not be allowed to have a pet of any kind (dog, cat, bird, fish...), They should not be allowed to own a gun, they should not be allowed to hunt, they should not be allowed to go fishing. They should not be allowed cable or satellite T.V.. They should not be allowed internet access nor should they be allowed to own a computer. They should be barred from going to any kind of sport event. In all, they should be denied anything and everything that they might spend welfare dollars on. Uncle Sam should give them a very short list that should only allow them to pay gas, electric, phone, water and government approved food (Ramen Noodles). Why the fuck should tax dollars pay for anything these people get. The government needs to install cameras, GPS monitors and enact mandatory testing for everything they ingest!
Wouldn't this form of Nanny State be grand! Just add these things on to mandatory drug testing and WHAMO 1984!!!!!!!!! Knocking at your door!
I think it would be easier to just not give them the money.
Whether you give them the money and let them spend it irresponsibly, or give them the money and tell them how to spend it; it's a nanny state either way.
I'm not totally against it, but it should be more like unemployment where you get it for a certain limited period, and then get cut off. Career welfare needs to be stopped.
Unless you can prove a significant disability (just not being smart doesn't count) you need to get a job and pay your way. There are lots of jobs out there. Most of them are not very glamorous. So fucking what.
If there were not as many people on the welfare rolls, then the government employees that are supposed to run the program might be able to monitor it well enough to curtail abuse.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
QuoteApparently mouthwash can cause you to fail a breathalyzer (or so I have heard). I am sure there can be flaws in any system and that is why you get a court hearing.
As for passive inhalation, can medical science make no distinction between a guy who was near a few potheads at a concert and a huy who was smoking up. Surely much like alcohol where the test the levels they could determine a benchmark measure whereby they can reasonable say you were directly inhaling it.
The mouthwash/breathalyzer is true as when I went through an alcohol program in 95, I was told not to use mouthwash before coming to the center. They gave each person a breath test upon entering class.
From what I understand is that a breath test can give a much higher alcohol reading than a blood test (which is more reliable). I blew a positive at Sturgis in 92. I was pulled over after doing a burnout at the Broken Spoke. I honestly only had two beers and only dranked half of the second one (he were riding all day and only just got back to town an hour or so before). (The Sturgis DUI/PI is really a scam as they fine everyone $400.00, no record and banned from town for one year. I know several who were arrested at their camp for public intoxication. Fuck the Sturgis yuppie fest and those who trailer a bike to a run
). Anyways, if you are pulled over and believe that you are not intxicated (you honestly only had a beer or two) demand a blood test as drinking a beer within an hour could lead to a positve breath test (advise from a DUI lawyer). As for mj;
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6821
From the article; Approximately 55 million drug screens are performed annually in the United States. The majority of these are workplace urinalysis tests, which detect the presence of drug metabolites (inert byproducts produced after a substance is metabolized by the body), but not the substance itself. Consequently, the US Department of Justice affirms that a positive drug test result for the presence of a drug metabolite "does not indicate ... recency, frequency, or amount of use; or impairment."
This would indicate that roadside testing or any testing would be highly unreliable and would/could result in a person being falsely accussed and punished for such. Given the DoJs statement, one should be able to mount a decent defense against a roadside drug test.
QuoteNow we are going on a bit of a tangent.
True but, if a persons health also comes into play then it somewhat ties in. Heavy smokers tend to be slower and a lot lazier than light to non smokers. As for pot smokers, I honestly do not know any pot smoker who sit around all day or sleeps in till past noon. Those whom I know to be heavy drinkers tend to be more problematic and a far greater danger at work. They tend to be highly unaware and tend to leave their work station to nurse their hangovers or sneak a drink. The pot smokers I've worked with were always more motivated and really into what they were doing as oppose to the heavy drinkers. Contrary to popular belief, pot smokers do tend to be highly creative and motivated people. This is not to say that there are no lazy pot smokers as there are lazy people across the social spectrum. Media seems to protray pot smokers as the "dirty lazy hippy" Surely Cheech and Chong didn't help the image any but, they are smokers themselves and are highly motivated people (note, they abstained from smoking while filming their movies, according to them).
A person should be judged upon performance and not by what they ingest. If problems do arise in a person, then yes, a reason should be seeked. Until then, testing is unwarrented and is merely fishing in the hope of snaring. It would be a slippery slope to start testing so many more and would lead to an even greater invasion of a persons life. With 55 million tests already being performed it is, without doubt, big business. How long before each and every person is required to be tested before obtaining a drivers license, gun permit, hunting license, maybe a home loan, car insurance, health insurance, home insurance, school loans, pell grants... Do you see where I am going with this? How long before every aspect of your life is scrutinized before you are allowed to do anything? What may seem like a fine idea one day will someday be seen as the start of big brother controlling every step we take.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
Richards 0
QuoteAlcohol leaves the body very quickly - can't test for it from more than a day or so in the past. Not true for pot, so how do you know if someone inhaled 2 weeks ago versus breathed smoke yesterday?
There must be a rate of disipation of it in your blood stream is there not? There is no way whatsoever top distinguish between someone who just got high and someobe who got high yesterday? There must be some chemical difference in your bloodsteam that they can measure otherwise you would stay high for weeks
QuoteAs I mentioned earlier, performance is what matters, right? Lots of functional tokers out there. Lots of non functional drunks.
Met functionals and non-functionals for both.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteI'm not totally against it, but it should be more like unemployment where you get it for a certain limited period, and then get cut off. Career welfare needs to be stopped.
Unless you can prove a significant disability (just not being smart doesn't count) you need to get a job and pay your way. There are lots of jobs out there. Most of them are not very glamorous. So fucking what.
I somewhat agree and disagree. I do wish to monitor but cutting someone off cold will eliminate the possibility of them being able to get a job. I would prefer some kind of workfare scheme where the person has to get out of bed in the morning and do something to earn his keep. That way since he has to get up anyway he will have an incentive to try to find something that pays better than welfare. Cutt-offs should usually only apply in the case of those who do not do their work-fare.
The problem with welfare is not the welfare itself but the culture surrounding it. We in the west have become decadent and have lost the sense of responsibility for ones-self (particularly up here in Canada). I know this sounds like a cliche rant but we need to back up the language of entitlement spouted by anti-poverty activists and start conveying to people that they have to work to have a good life even if it offends some people. Get people used to the idea that it is not unfair to be minitored when you are on the public dollar, and it is not a violation of your rights/privacy.Start in the school system.
I honestly beleive we can maintain a charitable social system while simultaneously developing a culture of pride in self reliance. The two are not mutually exclusive .
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
pirana 0
QuoteI somewhat agree and disagree. I do wish to monitor but cutting someone off cold will eliminate the possibility of them being able to get a job. I would prefer some kind of workfare scheme where the person has to get out of bed in the morning and do something to earn his keep. That way since he has to get up anyway he will have an incentive to try to find something that pays better than welfare. Cutt-offs should usually only apply in the case of those who do not do their work-fare.
The problem with welfare is not the welfare itself but the culture surrounding it. We in the west have become decadent and have lost the sense of responsibility for ones-self (particularly up here in Canada). I know this sounds like a cliche rant but we need to back up the language of entitlement spouted by anti-poverty activists and start conveying to people that they have to work to have a good life even if it offends some people. Get people used to the idea that it is not unfair to be minitored when you are on the public dollar, and it is not a violation of your rights/privacy.Start in the school system.
I honestly beleive we can maintain a charitable social system while simultaneously developing a culture of pride in self reliance. The two are not mutually exclusive .
Sort of like a Works Program. Now why aren't we doing that anymore? Instead of free money, you show up at the Works Office and make yourself available to do pretty much whatever reasonable job there is to be done. When the project is over, you get reassigned.
Want more money and/or choice of job; then you just go out and get one on your own without going thru the Works Office.
I suppose the hairshirts and the ACLU would say that is infringing on people's freedom.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
Lindsey 0
For last fifty years we as a human race have been abusing the natural selection process. Which was there for purpose to keep the species healthy and competitive in the environment.
"Natural selection" is not there for any particular *purpose*. It just is. And it certainly hasn't stopped just because we don't like the characteristics that we believe are being selected for.
"Natural selection" is not there for any particular *purpose*. It just is. And it certainly hasn't stopped just because we don't like the characteristics that we believe are being selected for.
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
Quote
"Natural selection" is not there for any particular *purpose*. It just is.
But it *has* the purpose.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Richards 0
QuoteSort of like a Works Program. Now why aren't we doing that anymore? Instead of free money, you show up at the Works Office and make yourself available to do pretty much whatever reasonable job there is to be done. When the project is over, you get reassigned.
Sounds like an excellent idea
QuoteWant more money and/or choice of job; then you just go out and get one on your own without going thru the Works Office.
Precisely. Since you have to get up early in the morning every day (which requires getting some sleep the night before and staying reasonably sober), you have an incentive now to seek work that pays better and is more to your liking. Brilliant. Why the hell don't we have that?
QuoteI suppose the hairshirts and the ACLU would say that is infringing on people's freedom.
That's precisely the problem. The entitlement generation want all the freedoms of adulthood with the utter lack of personal responsibility which we attribute to childhood. They rant about "freedom baby" and "sticking it to the man" and how "the man" has no right to interfere with the way they live their lives, yet the indignantly expect "the man" to bottle feed them.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
No-one has ever accused me of that before but thank you (and of course you are welcome).
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites