WRONG!

Welfare recipients hurt others when they use drugs. They hurt the children, they hurt the families, they hurt the belief in the system. They hurt the trust of those who are trying to help them.

You seem to want to test for other reasons, but do not want to test welfare recipients. How do you mesh that inequality in treatment?

rickyp wrote:fate

People drive cars without being tested PRIOR to driving. That is a privilege.

Thats true.
What else is comparable ?
Do you need to pass both theory and practical tests to get a license to buy guns?

No, nor should you. Would you like a test administered before voting?

Do you neeed to have liability insurance to own and use a gun?

In effect, yes. We call it "homeowner's insurance." Liberals bring this up as a means of restricting rights--which they seem to oppose doing in most cases. Funny how they mostly hate the right to arm oneself and to defend oneself.

Plus, we know for a fact that there are more people doing any of the jobs I noted on drugs then of welfare recipients on drugs...

No we don't.

Fate

You are talking about restricting a right guaranteed by the Constitution

The right to privacy is guaranteed under the Constitution. And as you've claimed the right to search and seizure without probable cause exists. Why isn't it applied to people who require welfare assistance?
Have they given up these rights because theya re poor or because they've requested assistance?

A good question for the courts to decide. The other side is the State has a compelling interest in making sure they are not merely helping addicts stay addicted.

Fate

The rich? They are getting more of THEIR OWN MONEY back via credits. So what? They earned it.

Tom

These are people who are paying taxes, and the proposed $150,000 in itemized deductions is someone who is paying a LOT in taxes!

Do you gentlemen insist in believing that the system is fair and that the very rich haven't gained far more from the govnerment than they contribute?

A twisted view worthy of a Marxist.

They pay in more than they receive, which is more than the poor can say. The "rich" pay the lion's share.

One small example. When the policy of Quantitative easing was introduced to kickstart the economy after the self imosed financial disaster, the benefits accrued primarily to a very small group of people.

Kevin Warsh, a former Fed board member and one of the Brookings panelists, held a different view explaining that quantitative easing as a policy works purely through an “asset price channel” enriching the few who own stocks or other financial products (and not the 96% of Americans who receive the majority of their income through labor).

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front ... deo-wessel

That is your man, Obama, in action. He hates poor people.

None of these guys had to pass a drug test to receive the benefits of the many millions of dollars they recieved as a benefit of QE.
Doe that seem fair?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/ ... 4a257a116c

Your question is stupid. They didn't ask for anything.

Do you gentlemen insist in believing that the system is fair and that the very rich haven't gained far more from the govnerment than they contribute?

Absolutely!
do you want us to believe the poor are the ones supporting the country? ...really?

ricky

Do you need to pass both theory and practical tests to get a license to buy guns?

Fate

No, nor should you

you don't think demonstrating a basic knowledge of gun safety before being allowed a gun license would be a good idea? Why not?

RickyP, you seem to seldom (if ever!) answer a question given to you. Why should Fate answer yours?

I know, it is another question...

ricky

Plus, we know for a fact that there are more people doing any of the jobs I noted on drugs then of welfare recipients on drugs.

..

fate

No we don't.

Plus, we know for a fact that there are more people doing any of the jobs I noted on drugs then of welfare recipients on drugs...

sure we do. As long as they reflect the rate of the general populace, and there's really no reason to doubt that is there? Or do you evidence as specific as the actual test results from drug testing.

According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent.

rickyp wrote:ricky

Do you need to pass both theory and practical tests to get a license to buy guns?

Fate

No, nor should you

you don't think demonstrating a basic knowledge of gun safety before being allowed a gun license would be a good idea? Why not?

I was asked a question. I answered it.

Note well: you did NOT ask me if I thought it would "be a good idea" until now. Sure, it's a fine idea. Now, what kind of law would it be?

Pandora's box.

I am against all this kind of crap. Why? Because the goal of liberals is NOT to make sure we have a responsible and informed gun ownership. It is to create so many hurdles that few can be bothered.

Look, libs scream when any kind of waiting period is placed on abortions, or when clinics have to meet certain requirements, or when a woman is required to look at an ultrasound. That is for a "right" that is made up. The Second Amendment is not reliant upon penumbras. It's right there in bold, yet libs can't wait to tie citizens into knots to exercise their right.

Stay in Canada. You're safe there. No one ever gets shot by terrorists in Canada, right?

bbauska

WRONG!

Welfare recipients hurt others when they use drugs. They hurt the children, they hurt the families, they hurt the belief in the system. They hurt the trust of those who are trying to help them.

You seem to want to test for other reasons, but do not want to test welfare recipients. How do you mesh that inequality in treatment?

You may not be following closely, but I'm not really all that interested in drug testing for all those occupations or for gun owners.
I'm simply pointing out that there are more reasons to test for them than for welfare recipients.
For one, you are right that drug abusers often do harm their families. But so do drug abusers in the general populace and the actual test results show that there are more per capita in the general poulace than among welfare recipients.
So if you think that these are food reasons to test welfare recipietns aren't they also applicable equally to
- police officers
legislators
judges
They all receive public funds. Their abuse of drugs would harm their families. Their abuse of drugs would hurt the trust of the public in the system. I mean who wants to know that their police force is staffed by drug abusers? Wouldn't you want to be 100% sure the force was clean just as you are with welfare recipients?
And yet I'm sure there are issues of probable cause, and the indignity of the demand... All of which some how don't apply if one is a powerless welfare recipient.

Doctor Fate wrote:1. Every single person who wants allergy meds (pseudoephedrine) is treated like a meth dealer. No evidence needed of a crime. Punishment without benefit or due process.

Crap. Pseudoephedrine is not actually an allergy med. It is added to antihistamines to assist with symptoms. But it is the antihistamine that is the actual allergy medicine.

And all you need to to is to identify yourself to buy PE. Meth dealers get raided and arrested.

2. Liberals want to take away weapons from law-abiding citizens without evidence of wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing.

Can we just start with making it harder for those with terrorist links or anger issues getting them? Or can you only think in binary?

RickyP,
Have you ever been drug tested? I have. I have been tested at least 20 times in the military. Did I gripe and moan about it? NO. It is not a big deal. Pee in a cup and hand it to someone behind you. Go to a sporting event and the crowd is closer than a sample monitor.

It was a requirement of "receiving funds" as you say; I would say choice of profession. I withstood the "indignity" of giving a sample because it was my chosen job. If the requirement for "receiving funds" via welfare was the indignity of giving a sample, then it would be the recipient's choice.

bbauska wrote:RickyP,
Have you ever been drug tested? I have. I have been tested at least 20 times in the military. Did I gripe and moan about it? NO. It is not a big deal. Pee in a cup and hand it to someone behind you. Go to a sporting event and the crowd is closer than a sample monitor.

It was a requirement of "receiving funds" as you say; I would say choice of profession. I withstood the "indignity" of giving a sample because it was my chosen job. If the requirement for "receiving funds" via welfare was the indignity of giving a sample, then it would be the recipient's choice.

Do the chronically I'll, or the disabled, always get a choice on whether they need some form of assistance?

Does someone who loses their job in a recession always get a choice?

bbauska

It was a requirement of "receiving funds" as you say; I would say choice of profession. I withstood the "indignity" of giving a sample because it was my chosen job. If the requirement for "receiving funds" via welfare was the indignity of giving a sample, then it would be the recipient's choice

.
So then why shouldn't law makers, judges and police be drug tested?
Why focus on welfare recipients as opposed to more important members of the public administration?
I think its more important that these people be drug free then out of work indigents. The damage would be greater...
Plus, since they actually have the money to spend on drugs, we'll catch more... Or is the budget for drug testing unlimited ?

Nice skip over the 1st half of my post...

bbauska

Nice skip over the 1st half of my post.

..

The part about how its not unpleasant to have to go piss in a cup on demand?
Your personal feelings about whether this is demeaning or not is meaningless. Most people who are singled out for discriminatory treatment feel demeaned.

Its demeaning because only those on welfare are beign singled out for this treatment. Since, according to you, pissing in a cup on demand isn't such a bad thing, would you agree that having police officers and judges and legislators do so in order to collect their pay would be okay too?
These people are on the public purse, and if they abuse drugs are liable to do far more harm to others, to the system and to the integrity of the system then the indigent.
Surely they shouldn't mind the indignity, if you didn't.

I have said that public officials and those having a job from the government should have to give a sample for employment as a requirement of employment.

So, again, not true from you.

If you get a paycheck or welfare from the government, you should have to be tested upon request.

Danivon: Regarding the "chronically ill or the disabled"; they do have a choice. Quite simple to see.

THEY MAKE A CHOICE TO DO THE DRUGS!