Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/17/2012 2:17:29 AM   
DarqueMirror


Posts: 1262
Joined: 3/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
What part of illegal search arent you getting?


Oh I'm getting it. I just say "make it legal."

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Jobs where you are dealing with safety of the public, jobs where you are handling money, jobs where you could endanger the public, or property... those jobs should be drug tested.. and are.


What part of my list of employers did you ignore?

I've only handled money in one job, 18 years ago. At no time in any other job was I handling money, dealing with public safety, or in a position to endanger the public. Yet I have always. Been. Tested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Welfare recipients do not do any of those things.


No, they just get to sit on their asses and collect free cash with no conditions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
What they are having happen is being penalized for being poor.


Free money is a penalty? Wow, that's some penalty. Oh the horror.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
You can cloud it up with your wanting everyone to be tested. Its a fallacy. Everyone isnt. Nor should they without cause.


Sure they should. Most are anyway. Why's it good for some and not others?

< Message edited by DarqueMirror -- 1/17/2012 2:18:26 AM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/17/2012 2:41:56 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Oh I'm getting it. I just say "make it legal."


Ah so you advocate breaking the Constitution. Nice to know it means so little to you... you know.. those pesky freedoms.

Yet I have been tested for every job, as has nearly everyone I know. I have yet so see an employer *not* require a test. This includes but is not limited to: Grocery checker, Blockbuster manager, Military, Temp Office work, the medical field, security, IT, police, fire department, EMT (technically counts as medical as well), construction, A/C-heating tech, etc. etc. Pretty much all blue collar jobs require the test. So why not prep those on welfare to expect to be tested for a job? What possible harm can *preparation* do?

Your list.

Those colored green are money handling jobs

Military, medical, security, police, fire department, EMT, Construction... all safety.

AC heating tech... most need to be bonded... and since that job is in people's homes or businesses.. yep.. tested... money issue.

quote:

Sure they should. Most are anyway. Why's it good for some and not others?


As an RN, I was tested upon hire. Then only ever for cause.. which for me.. was never. My family is in contruction work.. for cause.

Under the new policy, reported on Wednesday in The New York Post, officers would be tested on entering the Police Academy and again when their probationary period ended after two years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/nyregion/10steroids.html

I have no issue with testing for cause. Beyond that, an invasion of privacy and the law wont stand.

And I still believe its hypocritical for a politician to be pushing the welfare drug testing bill when he cant seem to stay within the law himself.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DarqueMirror)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/17/2012 4:03:48 AM   
VioletGray


Posts: 359
Joined: 10/29/2007
From: Baltimore, MD
Status: offline 		accidental duplicate post

< Message edited by VioletGray -- 1/17/2012 4:53:16 AM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/17/2012 4:04:53 AM   
VioletGray


Posts: 359
Joined: 10/29/2007
From: Baltimore, MD
Status: offline 		DarqueMirror,

So far I've been ghosting this thread and watching the spirited debate between you and Tazzy but I'm seeing several problems with your argument here. I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just curious as to your answers for these things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
If you cant walk the walk, then why talk the talk? Its not his first time. Its only his first time getting caught. How many lives has he, or did he that night, put into jeopardy after smugly deciding welfare recipients were all these terrible drug users.


It sounds like he is very much "walking the walk," considering he is facing consequences for his actions. If he is facing the consequences, so should welfare recipients.

In reality, this whole thread is nothing but a red herring argument. Getting nailed for a DUI has nothing to do with his stance on drug testing for welfare recipients.


Here's the problem with this logic:
You make him "walking the walk" contingent upon what OTHER people do. OTHER people are prosecuting him, OTHER people are potentially sending him to jail. If you suggest harsher sentences for people robbing banks because, y'know, fuck bank robbers, then you get caught robbing a bank, the judge sentencing you is not you "walking the walk."

One would assume that the passing of stricter drug laws was for the purpose of discouraging drug use. (Yes, we all know that's not really what it's about but bear with me) If you are passing laws to discourage drug use, then you use drugs well then are you "walking the walk?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Again, politicians are being paid out of the same coffers as welfare recipients. Are they being drug tested?


Again, red herring. The offense you brought up with your story was about alcohol, not drugs. One is legal, one is not. The illegal part of his involvement with alcohol is something for which he is facing consequences, as should those who have illegal involvement with drugs.

Another apples/oranges difference you're forgetting is that he works for his money. Welfare recipients don't.


Again there's a problem with this. First of all I'm sure that you know alchohol is a drug. It being legal doesn't change what it is. There is no reason that alchohol should be legal and marijuana illegal. And yes, while he does work for a living he was given the job with the assumption that he wouldn't contribute to the problems he might have to address. Also, I'm pretty sure that many welfare recipients ARE employed, they just don't make enough money at their jobs to stay afloat.

Btw, I apologize for the length of this next quote but I believe that the context of Tazzy's points is important, in order to portray your rebuttals accurately:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Was this worth the cost?


I think any program aimed at keeping honest those who live off the government is worth the cost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
So he treats everyone like criminals,


That's if you assume a drug test, by its nature, is only used on criminals. I've been tested for every job I've ever held. I'm not a criminal. And I don't feel the testing treats me like one. The testing is just part of the deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
and yet expects a pass until he is "caught"?

It's not "getting a pass" until he does something illegal. That's what we call obeying laws. When he broke the law, he was charged with a crime. One can't be charged with breaking the law until they break it. A drug test is not a charge of an offense.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
To me, it would be the same as a crack user getting caught with the pipe in his mouth.

Not even remotely the same. Crack is illegal. Having it is illegal, buying it is illegal, selling it is illegal, using it is illegal. Alcohol is legal. You can legally sell it, buy it, own it and drink it. It's only when you drive under its effects that a crime occurs.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
So, why are welfare recipients treated differently?

Because they are getting a handout from the government. If you do not earn what is handed to you, you are subject to the conditions under which they choose to give it.
If you asked me for $100, I can tell you that I will give it to you only under certain conditions. If you do not adhere to those conditions, I can choose not to give you the money.


O.k., by now you've echoed the idea many times that people who get money from the government should be subject to whatever conditions the government wants. Really? Unconditionally? What if the government were to say, "No welfare assistance to people in interracial marriages." Or, "no welfare assistance to people who attend (insert political ideology here) meetings."
Also, there's an element to the logic behind the legislation that you seem to be ignoring here:

If there was a medical practice that everyone over 300 pounds who came in for a checkup was given diabetes testing, that would be because we understand that there's some sort of correlation between obesity and diabetes. I would argue that the legislation to drug test welfare recipients was done because there is a believed correlation between the two. Do you not have a problem with the government testing you for something you might be doing? I think that this legislation is based on a prejudiced mindset (I realize that we're used to hearing the word 'prejudice' in terms of race, but here I meaning lower income families.)


< Message edited by VioletGray -- 1/17/2012 4:11:01 AM >

(in reply to VioletGray)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/17/2012 4:32:23 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline 		First off; Darque, if you're going to school on the MGIB, I need to say: Thank you for your service, young man.

I am flabbergasted that someone that's had to endure drug testing when they are not a drug user just to be able to maintain employment would be for expanding the practice. I'll probably come back to that.

At first blush, people are want to say: "It's a fourth amendment issue". Well, I guess, in a way, it is but, I don't think it is, entirely.

It is (in my mind) absolutely an issue of privacy and an issue of the government treating us, the people to whom they're supposed to be answering, like children.

I find drug testing as a requirement for employment to be an invasion of my privacy to the Nth degree. No, I do not use drugs (except for the occasional drink while at Karaoke and nicotine and caffeine) and I rarely socialize with people that do.

That being said I don't think it's the government's place to legislate what we put into our bodies. It's a step on the path of our bodies not being our own and that is scary business.

I agree that there are some jobs where a person showing up drunk (or hung-over) or high (or the illegal equivilant to hung-over) would be problematic at best and out-right dangerous, at worst but, for the most part, I don't think there's anything wrong with "Joe the QC inspector" blowing a joint on Friday night and then, showing up for work on Monday morning.

Surely, we all have a right to work in a safe environment and to choose the things to which we will be exposed but, do we have a right to legislate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home if it doesn't affect us in any way? That's another slippery slope.

Here's the rub, though; people who are on assistance are asking society-at-large to pay for them to live. I believe in mercy and I believe in charity but I don't believe in buying drugs for people. I don't think I should have to subsidize someone's drug use. If that's the case, then y'all need to buy me my new Fender© Stratocaster. Surely, my guitar playing hurts no one except those forced to listen to it?

I want to stress, again: I am not for testing as a matter of course but, if they're found, using drugs, they're done living on my dime (when I get elected "KOTUS").



Peace and comfort,



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to VioletGray)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/17/2012 6:10:37 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		I can't recall seeing a single piece of empirical evidence suggesting that the policy of pre-employment drug testing achieves anything whatsoever. So what precisely does it achieve? Given the size of the drug problem in the US, one is tempted to say - absolutely nothing.

Other countries manage to get by without resorting to this level of intrusion into the private lives of its citizens. The only empirical evidence we have seen that I can recall is that drug testing welfare applicants in Florida has generated a 2% positive outcome. Which, to be fair, is a whopping 2% greater than a total failure - so the description 'abject failure' seems fair.

Is there any evidence to indicate this approach is anything other than an abject expensive pointless failure?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 1/17/2012 6:12:25 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/17/2012 4:13:02 PM   
VioletGray


Posts: 359
Joined: 10/29/2007
From: Baltimore, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I can't recall seeing a single piece of empirical evidence suggesting that the policy of pre-employment drug testing achieves anything whatsoever. So what precisely does it achieve? Given the size of the drug problem in the US, one is tempted to say - absolutely nothing.

Other countries manage to get by without resorting to this level of intrusion into the private lives of its citizens. The only empirical evidence we have seen that I can recall is that drug testing welfare applicants in Florida has generated a 2% positive outcome. Which, to be fair, is a whopping 2% greater than a total failure - so the description 'abject failure' seems fair.

Is there any evidence to indicate this approach is anything other than an abject expensive pointless failure?


Indeed, I can't find any either...

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/17/2012 4:16:41 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		On this subject. I have worked a BUNCH of jobs from construction labor to teaching children for 35 years. Hell, I even helped train cops and I have never been tested.

Anyone who has always been tested must just be unlucky.

The FL testing was passed as a money saving measure (get these druggies off assistance).

It has COST money.
Draw your own conclusions from both statements.

< Message edited by Hillwilliam -- 1/17/2012 4:23:49 PM >

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to VioletGray)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/17/2012 4:20:11 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Beyond nursing.. which makes sense with all the drug access.. I have been tested only once, and that was a hair sample. But, considering it was a job as a cashier handling large amounts of money, I understood that as well.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/18/2012 12:03:20 AM   
DarqueMirror


Posts: 1262
Joined: 3/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Ah so you advocate breaking the Constitution. Nice to know it means so little to you... you know.. those pesky freedoms.


I'm for breaking any excuse used by certain people YO sit around and suck on the government teat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Your list.

Those colored green are money handling jobs


And I've only held one. The manager one was held by a friend of mine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Military, medical, security, police, fire department, EMT, Construction... all safety.


And all essentially in the same category.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
AC heating tech... most need to be bonded... and since that job is in people's homes or businesses.. yep.. tested... money issue.


Funny, I notice you conveniently sidestepped (dodged) the temp work. Since getting out of the service, the temp work was the longest or second longest type of employment I've had. Guess what. Tested every. Single. Time. No money dealings, no safety issue, just sitting in a cubicle farm typing on a computer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I have no issue with testing for cause. Beyond that, an invasion of privacy and the law wont stand.


Well I have no issue with testing. They are getting free money with essentially no conditions other than having their hands out to take it. I have a huge problem with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And I still believe its hypocritical for a politician to be pushing the welfare drug testing bill when he cant seem to stay within the law himself.


Again, apples and oranges. The US is and has been in a supposed "war on drugs" for decades now and even the President (and past presidents) have admitted use. It's not uncommon.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/18/2012 12:20:44 AM   
DarqueMirror


Posts: 1262
Joined: 3/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VioletGray
Here's the problem with this logic:
You make him "walking the walk" contingent upon what OTHER people do. OTHER people are prosecuting him, OTHER people are potentially sending him to jail. If you suggest harsher sentences for people robbing banks because, y'know, fuck bank robbers, then you get caught robbing a bank, the judge sentencing you is not you "walking the walk."

One would assume that the passing of stricter drug laws was for the purpose of discouraging drug use. (Yes, we all know that's not really what it's about but bear with me) If you are passing laws to discourage drug use, then you use drugs well then are you "walking the walk?"


The point stands. He's not skating on his DUI, he's facing the consequences of his actions. As should welfare recipients found to be using illegal drugs.

Furthermore, we don't know the details of his DUI. We all know a .08 is the legal limit, but it's only .01 away from being "legal." the effects do not vary dramatically between .07 and .08. A .08 is just what the powers that be determined to be the line in the sand. We also have heard tales of people who had a drink, thought they were fine and were found not to be. Unless you carry a breathalyzer with you, you'll never truly know if you really are "fine" or just think you are. which is, of course, where all the ads about drinking responsibly come from.

Personally, I absolutely hate drunk drivers. However, I also have a best friend who got a DUI under shady circumstances. (He blew under the limit once, then was made to do it again, the results kept from him, and suddenly he's over the limit.)

The point being that a DUI doesn't factor in to the pushing of these types of laws. Now, if this guy was pushing a DUI hill and got nailed for one and skated, that would be hypocritical. But that's not the case. What the opponents here are essentially saying is that since this guy got arrested for DUI, he can't....push a gun-restriction law...or a jaywalking law. One has nothing to do with the other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VioletGray
Again there's a problem with this. First of all I'm sure that you know alchohol is a drug. It being legal doesn't change what it is.


No, but it does change its status in the eyes of the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VioletGray
There is no reason that alchohol should be legal and marijuana illegal.


Maybe, but this thread isn't about legalization of pot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VioletGray
And yes, while he does work for a living he was given the job with the assumption that he wouldn't contribute to the problems he might have to address. Also, I'm pretty sure that many welfare recipients ARE employed, they just don't make enough money at their jobs to stay afloat.


So what's wrong with helping to ensure they don't waste any of that precious money on things that are illegal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: VioletGray
O.k., by now you've echoed the idea many times that people who get money from the government should be subject to whatever conditions the government wants. Really? Unconditionally? What if the government were to say, "No welfare assistance to people in interracial marriages." Or, "no welfare assistance to people who attend (insert political ideology here) meetings."


The difference between illegal drug use and the other examples you provided is that illegal drug use can, will, and does prevent people from getting and maintaining decent jobs. If it's really "help" that's being provided and not just free cash, why not "help" these people maintain an ability to get and keep a decent job?

quote:

ORIGINAL: VioletGray
Also, there's an element to the logic behind the legislation that you seem to be ignoring here:

If there was a medical practice that everyone over 300 pounds who came in for a checkup was given diabetes testing, that would be because we understand that there's some sort of correlation between obesity and diabetes. I would argue that the legislation to drug test welfare recipients was done because there is a believed correlation between the two. Do you not have a problem with the government testing you for something you might be doing? I think that this legislation is based on a prejudiced mindset (I realize that we're used to hearing the word 'prejudice' in terms of race, but here I meaning lower income families.)


As I said, I'm already being tested. Therefore, since I have yet to have a job where I'm not tested, I say test everyone, especially those living off free cash provided by the government.

(in reply to VioletGray)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/18/2012 12:23:38 AM   
DarqueMirror


Posts: 1262
Joined: 3/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I can't recall seeing a single piece of empirical evidence suggesting that the policy of pre-employment drug testing achieves anything whatsoever. So what precisely does it achieve? Given the size of the drug problem in the US, one is tempted to say - absolutely nothing.

Other countries manage to get by without resorting to this level of intrusion into the private lives of its citizens. The only empirical evidence we have seen that I can recall is that drug testing welfare applicants in Florida has generated a 2% positive outcome. Which, to be fair, is a whopping 2% greater than a total failure - so the description 'abject failure' seems fair.

Is there any evidence to indicate this approach is anything other than an abject expensive pointless failure?


Then push for legalization. Until it's legal, I say test away. Even if no one is caught, they still have to be "wary" that they "might be." I'm never wary of getting caught because I have never touched an illegal drug. I haven't even touched a drop of alcohol since 2006, and that was while working as a waiter to be able to accurately describe a new line of drinks to customers.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/18/2012 12:25:10 AM   
DarqueMirror


Posts: 1262
Joined: 3/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Beyond nursing.. which makes sense with all the drug access.. I have been tested only once, and that was a hair sample. But, considering it was a job as a cashier handling large amounts of money, I understood that as well.


Welfare recipients could be considered to be handling money as well. There we go, matter solved. Since they are handling government money, test them.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/18/2012 12:40:37 AM   
DarqueMirror


Posts: 1262
Joined: 3/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
First off; Darque, if you're going to school on the MGIB, I need to say: Thank you for your service, young man.


You're welcome, though I don't consider my service to be all that special. It was only 7 years and I only deployed once.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
At first blush, people are want to say: "It's a fourth amendment issue". Well, I guess, in a way, it is but, I don't think it is, entirely.

It is (in my mind) absolutely an issue of privacy and an issue of the government treating us, the people to whom they're supposed to be answering, like children.

I find drug testing as a requirement for employment to be an invasion of my privacy to the Nth degree. No, I do not use drugs (except for the occasional drink while at Karaoke and nicotine and caffeine) and I rarely socialize with people that do.

That being said I don't think it's the government's place to legislate what we put into our bodies. It's a step on the path of our bodies not being our own and that is scary business.


See the problem with this is that, as military members, we are treated "like children" from day one. If one person in the unit does something stupid, we all suffer for it. One guy gets a DUI, we all go through mandatory training. One guy pops hot in a drug test...we can all plan on the good ol' "random" hand to find us soon enough. One guy gets slapped with sexual harassment, we all gave to attend annual briefings on why that's bad. It's ingrained to us very early. Hence my stance -- I've always been tested, so I want to share the pain in the ass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I agree that there are some jobs where a person showing up drunk (or hung-over) or high (or the illegal equivilant to hung-over) would be problematic at best and out-right dangerous, at worst but, for the most part, I don't think there's anything wrong with "Joe the QC inspector" blowing a joint on Friday night and then, showing up for work on Monday morning.


My thoughts on the legality of drug use are directly in conflict with this thread. Personally, I don't give two rats' assess what people do. I have no issue with it being legalized. However, currently it's not. And what I do have issue with is the plethora of people who absolutely refuse to contribute to society in any manner other than holding out their hands for a handout. Do they all do this? No. But it does happen. I've seen both ends of the spectrum. I've seen people use welfare to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get back on their feet in record time. And I've seen people whose idea of getting back on their feet is to squat out another kid to get more money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Surely, we all have a right to work in a safe environment and to choose the things to which we will be exposed but, do we have a right to legislate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home if it doesn't affect us in any way? That's another slippery slope.


It's only slippery with no line in the sand. Here, that line can easily be the free cash. If you're working for your living and making a contribution to society, do as you will. If you're collecting a free check and doing nothing to earn it but holding out your hand, then abide by the rules set forth to get that free cash.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Here's the rub, though; people who are on assistance are asking society-at-large to pay for them to live. I believe in mercy and I believe in charity but I don't believe in buying drugs for people. I don't think I should have to subsidize someone's drug use. If that's the case, then y'all need to buy me my new Fender© Stratocaster. Surely, my guitar playing hurts no one except those forced to listen to it?

I want to stress, again: I am not for testing as a matter of course but, if they're found, using drugs, they're done living on my dime (when I get elected "KOTUS").


Exactly my point. I don't want my cash buying their drugs. If welfare's intent truly is to "help" and not be a permanent crutch, we need to go further in "helping." To me that includes making sure if they interview for a job that tests, they won't be caught off-guard and ruin their chances for employment.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/18/2012 1:27:27 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I can't recall seeing a single piece of empirical evidence suggesting that the policy of pre-employment drug testing achieves anything whatsoever. So what precisely does it achieve? Given the size of the drug problem in the US, one is tempted to say - absolutely nothing.

Other countries manage to get by without resorting to this level of intrusion into the private lives of its citizens. The only empirical evidence we have seen that I can recall is that drug testing welfare applicants in Florida has generated a 2% positive outcome. Which, to be fair, is a whopping 2% greater than a total failure - so the description 'abject failure' seems fair.

Is there any evidence to indicate this approach is anything other than an abject expensive pointless failure?


Then push for legalization. Until it's legal, I say test away. Even if no one is caught, they still have to be "wary" that they "might be." I'm never wary of getting caught because I have never touched an illegal drug. I haven't even touched a drop of alcohol since 2006, and that was while working as a waiter to be able to accurately describe a new line of drinks to customers.

If you feel so certain that promoting abject pointless expensive failures that just happen to be gross invasions of privacy is such a good idea, perhaps you ought to re-consider your attitude towards stimulants, legal or otherwise.

It's not as though they're going to do any damage to your critical faculties is it?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 1/18/2012 1:31:30 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to DarqueMirror)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/18/2012 3:41:38 AM   
VioletGray


Posts: 359
Joined: 10/29/2007
From: Baltimore, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

The point stands. He's not skating on his DUI, he's facing the consequences of his actions. As should welfare recipients found to be using illegal drugs.


No, I don't think the point does stand. The politician in question got pulled over because he did something wrong in the first place. His initial crime? Running a red light. Their initial crime? Being poor. "You're driving unsafely, I'd better test your blood alchohol level" sounds better to you than "You're poor. I'd better test you for drugs." Doesn't it?


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror
Furthermore, we don't know the details of his DUI. We all know a .08 is the legal limit, but it's only .01 away from being "legal." the effects do not vary dramatically between .07 and .08. A .08 is just what the powers that be determined to be the line in the sand. We also have heard tales of people who had a drink, thought they were fine and were found not to be. Unless you carry a breathalyzer with you, you'll never truly know if you really are "fine" or just think you are. which is, of course, where all the ads about drinking responsibly come from.

Personally, I absolutely hate drunk drivers. However, I also have a best friend who got a DUI under shady circumstances. (He blew under the limit once, then was made to do it again, the results kept from him, and suddenly he's over the limit.)


What difference does it make? The "line in the sand" is where it is for a reason. Also, you're willing to question the validity of a potential alchohol test, but not drug testing? Especially drug testing spawned from an agenda?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror
The point being that a DUI doesn't factor in to the pushing of these types of laws. Now, if this guy was pushing a DUI hill and got nailed for one and skated, that would be hypocritical. But that's not the case. What the opponents here are essentially saying is that since this guy got arrested for DUI, he can't....push a gun-restriction law...or a jaywalking law. One has nothing to do with the other.


Ah I see, you fail to understand a very important point here. This wasn't a gun-restriction law, or a jaywalking law, this is a DRUG law. He is passing a drug law with an agenda, that agenda being to cut government aid to the poor based on prejudicial assumptions, and holding others to a standard that he isn't willing to hold himself to.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror
quote:

ORIGINAL: VioletGray
There is no reason that alchohol should be legal and marijuana illegal.


Maybe, but this thread isn't about legalization of pot.


I would argue that the two issues are linked, and this is a prime example of why. Also, you know they would be testing these poor people for marijuana use as a means to stop funding, further adding to the hypocrisy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror
So what's wrong with helping to ensure they don't waste any of that precious money on things that are illegal?


It isn't "helping." Helping would be something like if we made drug counseling available to anyone on welfare who felt as if they needed it. This is making their personal choices for them. I could even see cutting someone off if they rack up multiple drug charges while on welfare (I don't see the point of penalizing someone for their past) because they have PROVEN themselves to be a burden on the system. These people have proven no such thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

The difference between illegal drug use and the other examples you provided is that illegal drug use can, will, and does prevent people from getting and maintaining decent jobs. If it's really "help" that's being provided and not just free cash, why not "help" these people maintain an ability to get and keep a decent job?


Really? ALL drugs stop ALL people from getting ANY job? You are aware that a former cocaine user became President of the United States right? And so far, in the case of welfare recipients there hasn't been a correlation between drug use and unemployment (again, many welfare recipients have jobs.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror
As I said, I'm already being tested. Therefore, since I have yet to have a job where I'm not tested, I say test everyone, especially those living off free cash provided by the government.


I've NEVER been tested for a job. I know here there are some government jobs that require testing, but that's about it. Are you being tested by those respective jobs, or are you being tested by the government? The difference being if you fail a drug test at the job then you can look for another job. If you fail a government-sanctioned drug test for welfare, you don't get to eat food.

Would you be open to the federal government doing routine inspections through people's homes to make sure there was no "terrorist" literature? Because I don't see how these two things are all that different.


< Message edited by VioletGray -- 1/18/2012 3:43:25 AM >

(in reply to DarqueMirror)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/18/2012 5:33:37 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

And I've only held one. The manager one was held by a friend of mine.


ALL this drug testing for one job?

quote:

Funny, I notice you conveniently sidestepped (dodged) the temp work. Since getting out of the service, the temp work was the longest or second longest type of employment I've had. Guess what. Tested every. Single. Time. No money dealings, no safety issue, just sitting in a cubicle farm typing on a computer.


Some temp work does, some temp work doesnt. For nursing, temp work does require drug testing. All depends on what the temp work is. But, since you claim it was ever. single. time. Whats the name of the agency?

quote:

Well I have no issue with testing. They are getting free money with essentially no conditions other than having their hands out to take it. I have a huge problem with that.


So are SSI recipients. So are SS recipients. But I dont see a cry to have them tested... only welfare and unemployment. Hypocritical much?

quote:

Again, apples and oranges. The US is and has been in a supposed "war on drugs" for decades now and even the President (and past presidents) have admitted use. It's not uncommon.


Thats because you can not be convicted for admitting you have used... supposedly. But that is what welfare recipients are being forced do to. Admit physical proof with the results being they are "clean"

You may not have any problem with wasting tax payer money to do some test that less than 0.05% failed in Florida. Sounds like you are more pissy because you have to get tested, so you want everyone tested.

Yep, I agree, take a government dime, and you should be tested... even politicians. And when they line up to pee in those cups before, during and after elections, then they can test everyone else.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DarqueMirror)
Profile   Post #: 157
RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix - 1/18/2012 6:08:54 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		~FR

Deaths caused by pot... 0

Deaths caused by alcohol... 75,000 annually (half of which were not drinking(

Deaths caused by tobacco... 467,000 deaths annually

Deaths caused by FDA approved drugs....82,724 (2010)

Whats the difference? Only one is illegal.

Another lesser known fact...

It would take 30,000 joints to cause a human enough TCH toxicity.

Since most of these people who tested positive for drug use on the "welfare dole" tested positive for pot.... Why are we even bothering other than to win political points for a politician who doesnt have enough common sense to call a cab instead of driving drunk?

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 1/18/2012 6:09:30 AM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 158
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.113