|
On June 10 2011 08:17 Lixler wrote:
He's talking about forced by the government. If some private individual or circumstance forces you to consent to a search of your property, this is not the same thing as a government worker forcibly searching it without a warrant. He's not saying "No one has to sign up for welfare to live," he's saying "The government is not violating the Fourth Amendment because consenting to these drug tests is not mandatory."
Except welfare is mandatory to many of these people; therefore, drug tests are also mandatory. Government does have to enforce certain universal human rights.
|
On June 10 2011 08:07 travis wrote:
I am saying that if somebody is going to spend their money on weed rather than feeding their kids, then it has to do with them being a selfish asshole, rather than them being a pot smoker.
If the government had a "selfish asshole" test, im sure theyd do it. But as it is, the only things they can scientifically test for are illegal drugs. If the test comes up positive, they KNOW that the guy is spending money on things other than food for their families, aka they are a selfish asshole. Thats the closest you can get to a scientific selfish asshole test.
On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote:
yes but welfare has nothing to do with law enforcement. and it's entirely possible for somebody to spend welfare money on food or bills and smoke weed with their friends or have a pot plant in their house. they are singling something out that isn't even necessarily related to where people are spending their money.
its not about law enforcement. its about letting the program do the job its intended to do. welfare is for people who are currently in a rut but who also intend on getting back on their feet. as it is, weed is considered to be harmful enough to be illegal. the government sees this as being detrimental to helping someone get back up and running, so they restrict their welfare checks. how is this wrong?
if the government changed their minds and considered weed to be harmless enough to be legal, then of course i wouldnt have a problem with people spending their welfare checks on an occasional blunt to relieve the stress. (i dont consider my opinion on whether or not weed should be legal to be relevant here)
On June 10 2011 08:11 travis wrote:
no.. it's not a joke. many of you seem to think that because they are getting welfare it's justifiable for them to be drug tested. I disagree with this as I don't see the connection between getting welfare and smoking weed. More addictive drugs I'd actually agree with the policy but weed can be used recreationally.
Well, if weed became legal then its w/e for me. Im just looking at this logically in terms of the law. Since weed is currently an illegal drug, why shouldnt the government be allowed to test for drugs before handing out the money?
Also, I still think given the nature and purpose of welfare and it being the taxpayers'/government's money and all that they have the right to choose who they give the money to. They already restrict people on the much less illegal criteria of income levels, so why cant they restrict welfare checks to people who dont commit crimes?
On June 10 2011 08:11 travis wrote:
It's illegal regardless of whether or not they are drug tested, there would be no exception..
So youre saying hand out the money now, let them maybe get arrested later for wasting taxpayer dollars on drugs? Thats completely irresponsible. With the drug tests, you can prevent the waste of a welfare check on a drug addict, prevent further purchases and usage of drugs by giving the druggies less income, and actually give the money to a good family.
in what way is just giving them the money a good thing? what are you arguing? privacy?
|
On June 10 2011 08:21 Supamang wrote:
With the drug tests, you can prevent the waste of a welfare check on a drug addict, prevent further purchases and usage of drugs by giving the druggies less income, and actually give the money to a good family.
Except that you'd have to indiscriminately test everyone else apart from the druggies in question...unless you've come up with a way to only test drug users. This sounds an awful lot like a waste of money.
Plus you'd have to house and support the caught drug users in jail for doing illegal stuff...or, at the very least, assign officers to watch them on probation. Which definitely costs more than a welfare check.
|
compare a guy on benefit who smokes weed
to a guy who uses the same money to drink every day
to a guy who uses the same money to eat fast food every day
to a guy who uses the money to go clubbing once a week
to a guy who uses the money to maintain his golf club membership
to a guy who uses the money to buy a new computer
to a guy who uses the money to date women and buy them gifts
to a guy who uses the money to buy a car rather than a bus pass
to a guy who uses the money to rent movies and go to the cinema
wellfare money is spent however the person sees fit - if not on health and fitness then on whatever luxury that person wants. if a person is going to be irresponsible with something, it can be with weed or alcohol or food or trinkets or whores or gambling or clothes or fine dining or any other thing that a person can do with money (and there are a lot more things than those, i just suck at listing them)
as for hard drugs (tnx for the pm), idk, maybe it will be an incentive to get people off of them, or maybe it will cause a lot of hard drug users to get even deeper into crime when they have to fraud, or when they find themselves with no government support whatsoever and start mugging people.
with regards to hard drug users, look at it this way: maybe it will help some, maybe it will fuck some up even worse (seems more likely dont you think, realistically?). on the whole, does this make it a good policy or a "not quite so sure about this one" policy?
|
On June 10 2011 08:22 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:21 Supamang wrote:
With the drug tests, you can prevent the waste of a welfare check on a drug addict, prevent further purchases and usage of drugs by giving the druggies less income, and actually give the money to a good family. Except that you'd have to indiscriminately test everyone else apart from the druggies in question...unless you've come up with a way to only test drug users. This sounds an awful lot like a waste of money. Plus you'd have to house and support drug users in jail for doing illegal stuff...or, at the very least, assign officers to watch them. Which definitely costs more than a welfare check.
I didn't read anything in there that they were going to prosecute people who failed the test.
|
On June 10 2011 08:25 RoosterSamurai wrote:
I didn't read anything in there that they were going to prosecute people who failed the test.
It's legal to use cocaine, marijuana, and meth in Florida? I'm pretty sure that all of those drugs are against the law.
Or are they going to ignore drug use, despite public and readily-available evidence to the contrary?
|
On June 10 2011 08:25 FFGenerations wrote:
compare a guy on benefit who smokes weed
to a guy who uses the same money to drink every day
to a guy who uses the same money to eat fast food every day
to a guy who uses the money to go clubbing once a week
to a guy who uses the money to maintain his golf club membership
to a guy who uses the money to buy a new computer
to a guy who uses the money to date women and buy them gifts
to a guy who uses the money to buy a car rather than a bus pass
to a guy who uses the money to rent movies and go to the cinema
wellfare money is spent however the person sees fit - if not on health and fitness then on whatever luxury that person wants. if a person is going to be irresponsible with something, it can be with weed or alcohol or food or trinkets or whores or gambling or clothes or fine dining or any other thing that a person can do with money (and there are a lot more things than those, i just suck at listing them)
first of all, whats wrong with eating fast food every day? thats like the cheapest food around. id rather them eat fast food while they fix their life up instead of spending welfare checks on 5 star restaurants.
second, you cant test for clubbing, computers, sex, or whatnot (and lol, good luck saving enough welfare checks for buy a car). you can test for drugs
third, its the governments money, they get to choose who it goes to. whats wrong with that?
|
On June 10 2011 08:26 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:25 RoosterSamurai wrote:
I didn't read anything in there that they were going to prosecute people who failed the test. It's legal to use cocaine, marijuana, and meth in Florida?
Of course it is. But denying them welfare because they failed a drug test isn't the same as arresting them on the spot. Nobody is getting arrested. They just don't get the welfare money.
|
Many people who abuse drugs can't simply just say "aww I won't get welfare if I'm doing cocaine. I guess I'll just have to stop suddenly." I don't think this will work in all the ways they anticipated.
|
Weeell drug addicts need money too.
'Our national drug is alcohol. We tend to regard the use of any other drug with special horror, and the addict deserving of the destruction of their minds and bodies'
(paraphrased from memory from William Burroughs)
EDIT: On June 10 2011 08:28 Grobyc wrote:
Many people who abuse drugs can't simply just say "aww I won't get welfare if I'm doing cocaine. I guess I'll just have to stop suddenly." I don't think this will work in all the ways they anticipated.
Yeah and that.
|
On June 10 2011 08:27 RoosterSamurai wrote:
Of course it is. But denying them welfare because they failed a drug test isn't the same as arresting them on the spot. Nobody is getting arrested. They just don't get the welfare money.
Why wouldn't they get arrested? I'm pretty sure that possession and use of illegal drugs is worth at least six months in jail over there. It certainly is so over here.
Or does the law work differently for welfare users? Are the police going to ignore failed drug tests?
|
On June 10 2011 08:29 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:27 RoosterSamurai wrote:
Of course it is. But denying them welfare because they failed a drug test isn't the same as arresting them on the spot. Nobody is getting arrested. They just don't get the welfare money. Why wouldn't they get arrested? I'm pretty sure that possession and use of drugs is worth at least six months in jail over there. Or does the law work differently for welfare users?
I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the answer to that question.
|
On June 10 2011 08:07 travis wrote:yes but welfare has nothing to do with law enforcement.
The proposed measure is not law enforcement. People who fail the voluntary drug tests aren't penalized.
On June 10 2011 08:07 travis wrote:and it's entirely possible for somebody to spend welfare money on food or bills and smoke weed with their friends or have a pot plant in their house. they are singling something out that isn't even necessarily related to where people are spending their money.
That doesn't make it wrong, merely the first step in the right direction. Would you have a problem with the government handing out Safeway gift cards instead of welfare money? If so, why? Do you think people are entitled to recreational money from the government when the purpose of welfare (as determined by voters, directly/indirectly) is for food and shelter?
Your argument boils down to something like: "People can already download movies illegaly. That means it is wrong for schools to prevent their students from using their school-provided internet to download music."
You don't have a right to free recreational money. We as a country have decided you have a right to food, shelter, and other basic needs if you can't get those things, and have agreed to pay for this, but we've never agreed that people have a right to weed (or crack, or heroin, etc.) money. Therefore, it is in the government's interest to ensure that the money we give you is used for the things they were intended for.
|
They should do this in NZ. Too many maoris sucking of the system for drugs
|
Now this is an idea I can get behind, fuck those junkies!
|
On June 10 2011 08:30 RoosterSamurai wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the answer to that question.
Yeah, it doesn't. The law applies to everyone equally, per the Constitution. This includes welfare users. If the police was deliberately ignoring a huge database of evidence, that would be terrible precedent. Even if the alternative involves costing the state a fuckton more money in its effort to...save money.
|
Didn't read much of this thread, but just saying:
It's fairly easy to use other, less-traceable drugs around the time when a test is taken. For instance, if someone is smoking weed every day and wants to take a tolerance break for a month or so (will help them get higher using less weed anyway) and just use other drugs on the side like LSD or mushrooms which will be out of said persons system within days. Even meth won't be detected after a long weekend.
And if they really wanted to get sneaky, people can also use things like DXM which can be written off as just having some cold medicine (unless you trip a lot, because you'll start testing positive for opiates) or n2o (good luck testing for that lol). The best part about those two is that they are legal and can be picked up at any supermarket (or order crates of n2o to your house legally, much more neat)
Just sayin'
|
On June 10 2011 08:32 acker wrote:Yeah, it doesn't. The law applies to everyone equally, per the Constitution. This includes welfare users. If the police was deliberately ignoring a huge database of evidence, that would be terrible precedent.
There's already existing precedents for this kind of stuff, such as how police do not use educational and medical databases to go after illegal immigrants. It would be really, really easy to compare K-12 educational databases to registered citizens/legal imimigrants and identify whole families.
The idea is that certain things are not admissible as evidence in court.
|
The amount of uneducated bullshit and just made up facts in this thread is fucking embarrassing.
User was warned for this post
|
United States179 Posts
On June 10 2011 08:15 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 08:11 Jayme wrote:On June 10 2011 07:54 travis wrote:
This is wrong for multiple reasons, the primary one being that people should be allowed to spend their welfare check on weed if they want to. I'm a pretty liberal person generally but I simply don't agree with this. Welfare money is pretty much a pure drain on the country in terms of money. If these people are collecting this money from everyone's tax dollars I would really appreciate it if they didn't spend it on getting high. wtf does this even mean. what do you think happens to welfare money? that they put it away in lockboxes never to be seen again? Show nested quote +
If they use it to pay rent, get food, and otherwise try to make their lives better so they can get out of welfare? Great....however if they just stay on welfare because it's free money and buy drugs with it all day, that's really not okay..
So you get to say what they spend their money on to be comfortable, basically? Weed doesn't fit in here but food does? Why not just give them food stamps. Do they need electricity? Why? Do they need things like ice cream? Some people like to smoke weed it's really not a big deal and it isn't exactly the most expensive thing in the world. So many of you are going to say my argument is retarded, but it's really not. Welfare isn't meant just to keep people alive. It's very easy to do that with very very little money. It's to keep them at a certain standard of living.
Actually your argument is retarded...
Anyways, I don't think smoking weed is a part of that "certain standard of living." Why don't people give money to hobos on the street? It's mainly because they're worried the hobos will go spend it on drugs and alcohol rather than food, shelter, clothes, etc. In a similar way, it's completely reasonable to be worried about how welfare recipients spend their checks; why should they spend "carelessly" what they receive from other people? If you're so OK with ppl doing w/e they want, then why don't you give money out to hobos and tell them it's okay to use it on drugs and alcohol?
On a side note, I don't really get why people are always screaming about their freedoms. There simply has to be limitations as society becomes more complex (i.e. development of internet). Rules are almost always beneficial to the great majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
