More American Workers Are Testing Positive for Drugs

[Speaker to Animals]

Stop the hysteria. You know that it would be limited to narcotics (especially addictive narcotics that are dangerous for your health and illegal).

You might want to get knowledgeable about what 'clean' means. No mind- or mood-altering drugs. No alcohol, no pot, no amphetamines, no narcotics, no hallucinogens, etc., etc. It sounds like you define "narcotics" as "substances I don't take." If you really mean "controlled substances," that would still open up a door you might not want to walk through.

The 'narcotics' part would be funny if it weren't so sad - cocaine isn't a narcotic. Nicotine kills a lot of people, and is also not a narcotic (or even a controlled substance). People on steroids harm other people sometimes, or themselves (heart attacks and cancer). Alcohol may be the worst drug of all, as far as societal effects go.

It means whatever the law would say it means. Stop being so hysterical. You are straw manning people.

Fuck off with the sophistry already.

[SilverEagle]

[MilSpecs]

Stop the hysteria. You know that it would be limited to narcotics (especially addictive narcotics that are dangerous for your health and illegal).

You might want to get knowledgeable about what 'clean' means. No mind- or mood-altering drugs. No alcohol, no pot, no amphetamines, no narcotics, no hallucinogens, etc., etc. It sounds like you define "narcotics" as "substances I don't take." If you really mean "controlled substances," that would still open up a door you might not want to walk through.

The 'narcotics' part would be funny if it weren't so sad - cocaine isn't a narcotic. Nicotine kills a lot of people, and is also not a narcotic (or even a controlled substance). People on steroids harm other people sometimes, or themselves (heart attacks and cancer). Alcohol may be the worst drug of all, as far as societal effects go.

It means whatever the law would say it means. Stop being so hysterical. You are straw manning people.

Fuck off with the sophistry already.

Calm down. I didn't tell you to get clean or die.

[SilverEagle]

You might want to get knowledgeable about what 'clean' means. No mind- or mood-altering drugs. No alcohol, no pot, no amphetamines, no narcotics, no hallucinogens, etc., etc. It sounds like you define "narcotics" as "substances I don't take." If you really mean "controlled substances," that would still open up a door you might not want to walk through.

The 'narcotics' part would be funny if it weren't so sad - cocaine isn't a narcotic. Nicotine kills a lot of people, and is also not a narcotic (or even a controlled substance). People on steroids harm other people sometimes, or themselves (heart attacks and cancer). Alcohol may be the worst drug of all, as far as societal effects go.

It means whatever the law would say it means. Stop being so hysterical. You are straw manning people.

Fuck off with the sophistry already.

Calm down. I didn't tell you to get clean or die.

But you will tell him to get clean or STFU!

[MilSpecs]

It means whatever the law would say it means. Stop being so hysterical. You are straw manning people.

Fuck off with the sophistry already.

Calm down. I didn't tell you to get clean or die.

But you will tell him to get clean or STFU!

[Speaker to Animals]

You might want to get knowledgeable about what 'clean' means. No mind- or mood-altering drugs. No alcohol, no pot, no amphetamines, no narcotics, no hallucinogens, etc., etc. It sounds like you define "narcotics" as "substances I don't take." If you really mean "controlled substances," that would still open up a door you might not want to walk through.

The 'narcotics' part would be funny if it weren't so sad - cocaine isn't a narcotic. Nicotine kills a lot of people, and is also not a narcotic (or even a controlled substance). People on steroids harm other people sometimes, or themselves (heart attacks and cancer). Alcohol may be the worst drug of all, as far as societal effects go.

It means whatever the law would say it means. Stop being so hysterical. You are straw manning people.

Fuck off with the sophistry already.

Calm down. I didn't tell you to get clean or die.

Hysteria. Nobody said that.

[MilSpecs]

It means whatever the law would say it means. Stop being so hysterical. You are straw manning people.

Fuck off with the sophistry already.

Calm down. I didn't tell you to get clean or die.

Hysteria. Nobody said that.

Well, "take a chill pill" just seems wrong in this thread.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Stop the hysteria. You know that it would be limited to narcotics (especially addictive narcotics that are dangerous for your health and illegal).

You might want to get knowledgeable about what 'clean' means. No mind- or mood-altering drugs. No alcohol, no pot, no amphetamines, no narcotics, no hallucinogens, etc., etc. It sounds like you define "narcotics" as "substances I don't take." If you really mean "controlled substances," that would still open up a door you might not want to walk through.

The 'narcotics' part would be funny if it weren't so sad - cocaine isn't a narcotic. Nicotine kills a lot of people, and is also not a narcotic (or even a controlled substance). People on steroids harm other people sometimes, or themselves (heart attacks and cancer). Alcohol may be the worst drug of all, as far as societal effects go.

It means whatever the law would say it means. Stop being so hysterical. You are straw manning people.

Fuck off with the sophistry already.

I think we should all follow this example, and base our moral compass and medical care around the dictates of Congress and the President. It's the American thing to do, after all.

[Speaker to Animals]

I think the purpose of welfare is to end poverty. I think one of the chief causes of poverty, or at least one of the primary obstacles for many escaping poverty, happens to be drug abuse.

This is the shibboleth that separates people who have no goodwill towards the poor and those who want to actually help them. If you just want to throw money at them so they vote for your political party, without actually helping them escape poverty, then you obviously couldn't care less about them.

What's so wrong with identifying a drug abuse problem (which is a disease after all) and getting people to treatment for that?? It's really unbelievable to me that you people seriously oppose that. How fucked up can you get? Oh wait.. I just remembered the Euro thread..

[jbird4049]

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.

Treating poverty like a morality play, and deciding that makes it okay to ignore the Bill of Rights is morally wrong, and self defeating, and should be unconstitutional.