Welfare Drug Test?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 Next
Zipperfish @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:58 am
Funny how the right wing--the so-called defenders of freedom--are the first ones to call for whole new bureaucracies of people to watch you pee.
Benoit @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:13 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Funny how the right wing--the so-called defenders of freedom--are the first ones to call for whole new bureaucracies of people to watch you pee.
Theodor Adorno can still be very helpful to allow us better understand why right-wing persons need to control everything:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality
Wally_Sconce @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:21 pm
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
The reason why we dont urine test welfare recipients is many - not most - not all - just many of them would fail the test.
Welfare is supposed to be the lowest common denominator for canadians, or close to it.
I don't want to see people abusing welfare( if thats possible), but I also don't want to see the government create a mountain of qualifiers that make it impossible for someone to collect welfare when they need it...or when the people have enough sense to come ask for it instead of becoming a homeless street person.
Welfare is supposed to be the lowest common denominator for canadians, or close to it.
I don't want to see people abusing welfare( if thats possible), but I also don't want to see the government create a mountain of qualifiers that make it impossible for someone to collect welfare when they need it...or when the people have enough sense to come ask for it instead of becoming a homeless street person.
Think twice about how you propose to prevent welfare abuses, you could end up with a thriving black market of drugs with the organized crime trying to monopolize it.
I find your claims are more drug induced.
You only have found that you can use the word «drug» to cover up your misunderstanding.
Is that what is happening here? You have some sort of misunderstood hatred for people on welfare, so you have to accuse them drugs and organized crime? Why then would you be offended when I accuse you of having a drug induced claim?
mtbr @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:49 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Funny how the right wing--the so-called defenders of freedom--are the first ones to call for whole new bureaucracies of people to watch you pee.
If its my company, my money and my employees safety on the line you will piss or get off the pot.
Thats not controlling it's called managing.
Zipperfish @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:14 pm
mtbr mtbr:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Funny how the right wing--the so-called defenders of freedom--are the first ones to call for whole new bureaucracies of people to watch you pee.
If its my company, my money and my employees safety on the line you will piss or get off the pot.
Thats not controlling it's called managing.
Yeah, you sound like you'd be a joy to work for. Still, you're right--if it's a private company, then it should be the discretion of the employer. My probl;em is whne you havet he governmetn doing it--particualrly since the test is lousy at detecting hard drugs--all it really tells you is if the guy smoked a joint at some time in the last three months. Hardly seems like a reason to create new bureaucracies and blow millions in tax payers dollars.
mtbr @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:47 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Yeah, you sound like you'd be a joy to work for. Still, you're right--if it's a private company, then it should be the discretion of the employer. My probl;em is whne you havet he governmetn doing it--particualrly since the test is lousy at detecting hard drugs--all it really tells you is if the guy smoked a joint at some time in the last three months. Hardly seems like a reason to create new bureaucracies and blow millions in tax payers dollars.
Instead of testing everyone collecting welfare how about testing those who have been caught or have drug convictions. It wouldn't be a witch hunt like you make it out to be but rather a preventative measure,
which could actually save money in the long run.
Benoit @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:12 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
I find your claims are more drug induced.
You only have found that you can use the word «drug» to cover up your misunderstanding.
Is that what is happening here? You have some sort of misunderstood hatred for people on welfare, so you have to accuse them drugs and organized crime? Why then would you be offended when I accuse you of having a drug induced claim?
How would you react if your privacy would be violated? Try to convince me that you would become a better person?
damngrumpy @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:43 pm
The reason I oppose drug tests which I would have no problem with, is because the next door would include tests to find out if you drink, a credit check, people would then make decisions based on whether you are officially married or not and the list goes on. It depends on the job, for example, a pilot stoned could be a problem but in. most cases we are not dealing with life and death.
The concept of welfare has changed and we should get back to the original idea and we should be willing to invest in the welfare recipient, in order to get them back to work.
Welfare should be a short term solution to a temporary problem, and the society giving you assistance should also be prepared to invest in your future to enable you to get back into the workforce.
Take education itself, we should have a marks based system where education would be an investment instead of an expense. If you maintain consistent marks throughout the year you post secondary education would be covered by government. If you slacked off the next semester would be paid by you.
At graduation those who couldn't afford to pay for an education could work for the society they live in for say 3 years at a reduced rate to pay back taxpayers who paid their costs. The result would be a well trained and well educated society and people with education, careers and training are far less likely to end up on welfare. Why do we continue to pay welfare, yet we won't fund post secondary education that would decrease the need fo rwelfare? We need to re-think how we do everything.
Wally_Sconce @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:55 pm
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
I find your claims are more drug induced.
You only have found that you can use the word «drug» to cover up your misunderstanding.
Is that what is happening here? You have some sort of misunderstood hatred for people on welfare, so you have to accuse them drugs and organized crime? Why then would you be offended when I accuse you of having a drug induced claim?
How would you react if your privacy would be violated? Try to convince me that you would become a better person?
If you are stopped at a road block, the contents of your car and person are subject to search. You're assumption that the content of a laptop is private, is totally flawed. If its important to keep the contents private, then keep it at home.
Wally_Sconce @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:04 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
I find your claims are more drug induced.
You only have found that you can use the word «drug» to cover up your misunderstanding.
Is that what is happening here? You have some sort of misunderstood hatred for people on welfare, so you have to accuse them drugs and organized crime? Why then would you be offended when I accuse you of having a drug induced claim?
How would you react if your privacy would be violated? Try to convince me that you would become a better person?
If you are stopped at a road block, the contents of your car and person are subject to search. You're assumption that the content of a laptop is private, is totally flawed. If its important to keep the contents private, then keep it at home.
We both need to improve our reading comprehension.
Firstly, I responded to a different topic of searching laptops at an airport.
and secondly, if you read my posts again, you'll see that I am against drug testing welfare people.
Benoit @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:08 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
I find your claims are more drug induced.
You only have found that you can use the word «drug» to cover up your misunderstanding.
Is that what is happening here? You have some sort of misunderstood hatred for people on welfare, so you have to accuse them drugs and organized crime? Why then would you be offended when I accuse you of having a drug induced claim?
How would you react if your privacy would be violated? Try to convince me that you would become a better person?
If you are stopped at a road block, the contents of your car and person are subject to search. You're assumption that the content of a laptop is private, is totally flawed. If its important to keep the contents private, then keep it at home.
A body is a more private place than a home.
Wally_Sconce @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:13 am
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Benoit Benoit:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
I find your claims are more drug induced.
You only have found that you can use the word «drug» to cover up your misunderstanding.
Is that what is happening here? You have some sort of misunderstood hatred for people on welfare, so you have to accuse them drugs and organized crime? Why then would you be offended when I accuse you of having a drug induced claim?
How would you react if your privacy would be violated? Try to convince me that you would become a better person?
If you are stopped at a road block, the contents of your car and person are subject to search. You're assumption that the content of a laptop is private, is totally flawed. If its important to keep the contents private, then keep it at home.
A body is a more private place than a home.
If you believe that, why don't you stash your 3 month supply of illegal drugs in your pants instead of under your kitchen sink. and get back to us with the long term results of such a habit.
romanP @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:12 am
Yogi Yogi:
romanP romanP:
Why is it any of your business what I do in my own time?
Only to the point that IF what you are doing on your own time affects the health, safety or life of one of your co-workers on the job then certainly it is your employers business.Why is this so hard for you to comprehend???
I think I already made my position on that clear. As for myself, I sit at a desk and type numbers from drug receipts all day. I can do that job while high, nevermind what I do outside of work.
romanP @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:16 am
mtbr mtbr:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Yeah, you sound like you'd be a joy to work for. Still, you're right--if it's a private company, then it should be the discretion of the employer. My probl;em is whne you havet he governmetn doing it--particualrly since the test is lousy at detecting hard drugs--all it really tells you is if the guy smoked a joint at some time in the last three months. Hardly seems like a reason to create new bureaucracies and blow millions in tax payers dollars.
Instead of testing everyone collecting welfare how about testing those who have been caught or have drug convictions. It wouldn't be a witch hunt like you make it out to be but rather a preventative measure,
which could actually save money in the long run.
Those who have been caught doing what? Is this test going to screen for caffeine and nicotine too? How about DM cough remedies?
kenmore @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:32 am
point is if you are asking the tax payers to support you will welfare then you shouldnt have a problem being tested...I dont want my tax dollars spent buying crack for someone on welfare..
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 Next