More American Workers Are Testing Positive for Drugs

[SilverEagle]

Mandatory drug tests? Are there any other reasonable constitutional protections that we should deny to welfare recipients?


I empathize with concerns about freeloaders using taxpayer money for drugs, but like, less government more freedom should be the goal, no?

Good luck getting that message through to these brainwashed, protestant work ethic morons.

[Speaker to Animals]

I would impose mandatory random drug screenings in order to better manage the welfare funds and to effectively fight the poverty that led to welfare in the first place. If a person tests positive, I would just closely monitor the funds and how they use them. Audit them. Then I would require that they go to a drug treatment program. I have no problem paying for drug treatment for every American who needs it. But if somebody is just going to use cash payments to buy drugs, then we shouldn't be paying them cash directly, but rather, giving them the resources they need directly, with supervision.

This mentality that drug screening welfare recipients is some affront to freedom belies the gibs me attitude of the person expressing that opinion. The purpose of welfare is supposed to get people out of poverty and eventually out of the welfare program. You can't do that when they are abusing drugs. Sorry. Keep your pro-narcotics nonsense. I am not buying it. Drugs are a primary cause of poverty and one of the chief obstacles many have to overcome in order to escape it.

I am not talking about fucking people over or leaving them homeless and hungry. I am talking about actually helping people, something I don't think many libertarians and progressives really believe in doing.

[SilverEagle]

I would impose mandatory random drug screenings in order to better manage the welfare funds and to effectively fight the poverty that led to welfare in the first place. If a person tests positive, I would just closely monitor the funds and how they use them. Audit them. Then I would require that they go to a drug treatment program. I have no problem paying for drug treatment for every American who needs it.

Okay, that I agree with 100%

[pineapplemike]

At the very least can we start drug testing foreign aid recipients? Drugs for Americans First, you foreign losers can get high on your own dime

[MilSpecs]

I would impose mandatory random drug screenings in order to better manage the welfare funds and to effectively fight the poverty that led to welfare in the first place. If a person tests positive, I would just closely monitor the funds and how they use them. Audit them. Then I would require that they go to a drug treatment program. I have no problem paying for drug treatment for every American who needs it. But if somebody is just going to use cash payments to buy drugs, then we shouldn't be paying them cash directly, but rather, giving them the resources they need directly, with supervision.

This mentality that drug screening welfare recipients is some affront to freedom belies the gibs me attitude of the person expressing that opinion. The purpose of welfare is supposed to get people out of poverty and eventually out of the welfare program. You can't do that when they are abusing drugs. Sorry. Keep your pro-narcotics nonsense. I am not buying it. Drugs are a primary cause of poverty and one of the chief obstacles many have to overcome in order to escape it.

Drugs do not = 'narcotics.' Abstinence means abstinence from all mood- and mind-altering drugs, excepting medically necessary drugs for which there is no alternative (such as prednisone for breathing problems or sedatives mandated prior to invasive procedures).

If you're OK with random drug screening, you're going to go down that path (where others decide what 'clean' is). You may not like the results, because most people aren't clean. For that reason, it makes more sense to keep workplaces safe rather than try to solve social problems by extricating all mood- and mind-altering drugs from society.

[Speaker to Animals]

I would impose mandatory random drug screenings in order to better manage the welfare funds and to effectively fight the poverty that led to welfare in the first place. If a person tests positive, I would just closely monitor the funds and how they use them. Audit them. Then I would require that they go to a drug treatment program. I have no problem paying for drug treatment for every American who needs it. But if somebody is just going to use cash payments to buy drugs, then we shouldn't be paying them cash directly, but rather, giving them the resources they need directly, with supervision.

This mentality that drug screening welfare recipients is some affront to freedom belies the gibs me attitude of the person expressing that opinion. The purpose of welfare is supposed to get people out of poverty and eventually out of the welfare program. You can't do that when they are abusing drugs. Sorry. Keep your pro-narcotics nonsense. I am not buying it. Drugs are a primary cause of poverty and one of the chief obstacles many have to overcome in order to escape it.

Drugs do not = 'narcotics.' Abstinence means abstinence from all mood- and mind-altering drugs, excepting medically necessary drugs for which there is no alternative (such as prednisone for breathing problems or sedatives mandated prior to invasive procedures).

If you're OK with random drug screening, you're going to go down that path (where others decide what 'clean' is). You may not like the results, because most people aren't clean. For that reason, it makes more sense to keep workplaces safe rather than try to solve social problems by extricating all mood- and mind-altering drugs from society.

I'd be fine with the results even if "clean" came to mean straight edge. Deal with it.

[MilSpecs]

I'd be fine with the results even if "clean" came to mean straight edge. Deal with it.

But you're not fine with the results. You're not clean by your own admission. You'd lose your benefits under the scenario you're proposing. (Incredible self-sacrifice, if true.)

[Speaker to Animals]

I'd be fine with the results even if "clean" came to mean straight edge. Deal with it.

But you're not fine with the results. You're not clean by your own admission. You'd lose your benefits under the scenario you're proposing. (Incredible self-sacrifice, if true.)

I am clean.

[SilverEagle]

I would impose mandatory random drug screenings in order to better manage the welfare funds and to effectively fight the poverty that led to welfare in the first place. If a person tests positive, I would just closely monitor the funds and how they use them. Audit them. Then I would require that they go to a drug treatment program. I have no problem paying for drug treatment for every American who needs it. But if somebody is just going to use cash payments to buy drugs, then we shouldn't be paying them cash directly, but rather, giving them the resources they need directly, with supervision.

This mentality that drug screening welfare recipients is some affront to freedom belies the gibs me attitude of the person expressing that opinion. The purpose of welfare is supposed to get people out of poverty and eventually out of the welfare program. You can't do that when they are abusing drugs. Sorry. Keep your pro-narcotics nonsense. I am not buying it. Drugs are a primary cause of poverty and one of the chief obstacles many have to overcome in order to escape it.

Drugs do not = 'narcotics.' Abstinence means abstinence from all mood- and mind-altering drugs, excepting medically necessary drugs for which there is no alternative (such as prednisone for breathing problems or sedatives mandated prior to invasive procedures).

If you're OK with random drug screening, you're going to go down that path (where others decide what 'clean' is). You may not like the results, because most people aren't clean. For that reason, it makes more sense to keep workplaces safe rather than try to solve social problems by extricating all mood- and mind-altering drugs from society.

I'd be fine with the results even if "clean" came to mean straight edge. Deal with it.

Okay, then throw away all alcohol, tobacco, coffee and anything else with caffeine in it. Then lets talk.

[MilSpecs]

I'd be fine with the results even if "clean" came to mean straight edge. Deal with it.

But you're not fine with the results. You're not clean by your own admission. You'd lose your benefits under the scenario you're proposing. (Incredible self-sacrifice, if true.)

I am clean.

I'm happy to hear that - congratulations.