MB2
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5722
|
|
Florida, Kentucky & Missouri which are the first states in the union that will require drug testing for people applying for welfare benefits.
Some people are crying and calling this unconstitutional? How is this unconstitutional?
It's okay to drug test people who work for their money, but not those who don't?
|
sptsman
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 6198
Loc: Missouri
|
|
Good idea in concept and makes everyone feel like a wrong will be righted ... But is a really stupid idea that will be nearly impossible to enforce and has a million unintended consequences.
What happens when a baby mama tests positive for weed and her welfare checks / food stamps are cut off? Does the state automatically take the kids? If so, do we have the resources to deal with that? The short answer is "NO." Or let's say they don't take the kids. Are the kids better off with a mama that now has no money, food, diapers, etc?
I wish the right-wingers that propose these sorts of things and cheer the loudest for them would think them all the way through and let us know their plan for all of it, not just the cutting off part. Like it or not, thousands and thousands of kids will be affected by this and they never did a damn thing wrong, other than to have the misfortune of being born to a bad parent. Now we want to make their lives even harder and more miserable?
We conservatives often criticize the left for lofty ideals that can't be applied in the real world or for not thinking their utopian ways completely through. However, this sort law is exactly that. I would love to hear the whole plan for this... Lord knows we're not going to get rid of drugs, poverty or welfare by doing this. It seems to me, we just shift the costs to a different agency or have to create more government jobs to deal with it.
OK right-wingers, fire back 
--------------------
"Hunts are best measured by the endurance of the memories they produce..."
|
MB2
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5722
|
|
Well...
It's because ACLU’s case rests on whether the law violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against "unreasonable searches" by the government.
So why is the the authorities able to force trucking companies to drug test and maintain detailed records of its drivers if it's an unreasonable search? I mean, the guy's just doing his job, isn't he? Why isn't the ACLU all up in arms about that?
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
sptsman,
While I don't exactly disagree with the thinking the whole thing through side you express. I do wonder where you're getting your information that the welfare money/food stamps goes for the kids anyhow. You seem to be assuming that these "bad" parent(s) are using the free ride for the good of the children and not their drug habit. If it was just a little weed then baby mama should be able to stop and not miss a payment. If it's something stronger doesn't the "bad" parent need a different sort of help anyway?
I'm not exactly sure what the answer is but when their free ride gets evoked maybe it will be time for them to get back in church and straighten their lives out. What did poor folks do before the government free ride?
A large majority of the people who receive this assistance are black americans who really dislike the idea that their ancestors were slaves and don't even realize that by living on government assistance they're still slaves, just to a different master. If someone white points this out they are considered to be racist. Go figure, danged if you do and danged if you don't. 
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
Edited by Nontypical (06/17/12 03:26 PM)
|
Ozark
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods
|
|
Quote:
sptsman said:
We conservatives . . . . . .
sptsman - Really? If you're a "conservative", I'm gonna have to find something else to be.
|
sptsman
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 6198
Loc: Missouri
|
|
Quote:
Ozark said:
Quote:
sptsman said:
We conservatives . . . . . .
sptsman - Really? If you're a "conservative", I'm gonna have to find something else to be.
Or feel free to call me something else. Quite frankly, I'm not real thrilled with being pigeon-holed into a catagory, like the cans on a grocery store shelf anyway. I always thought of myself as conservative but when I hear idiotic plans like this, the idiotic arguments for the death penalty and even dumber ideas for immigration, I have to wonder if many of the right-wingers are just as shallow and unable to think something through as the left-wingers.
Miss Bud - The difference with truck drivers is that they are driving a several thousand pound vehicles, down the interstates at high speeds. The effects of not testing drivers would be tragic! And driving is not a constitutional right. It is privilege granted by each state and can/should be regulated for the saftety of all. It is not an infringement on anyone's rights to be required to take drug tests, in order to maintain the privilege, especially in light of the consequences...
Nontypical - your argument is the same one used by deadbeat dads. "She just uses the money on..." It falls apart when you consider that the recipient has to provide the basic needs of their kids, regardless of how they spend the money. We already have laws in place, if that is not happening properly. This new law flies in the face of conservative principles, for those of you that like to preach about less government regulation, fewer laws passed, less restrictions and a smaller government. This law will only make your taxes higher and create more government. Why not just demand that your government enforce the laws already on the books? Don't we have drug laws? Don't we have child abuse and neglect laws? Do we really need another law that will just create more government and not solve one single issue?
Carry on...
--------------------
"Hunts are best measured by the endurance of the memories they produce..."
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
sptsman,
If you really think all welfare/food stamp recipients are providing for basic sustenance for their brood, you must be delusional or have a liberal streak in you.
I personally think we should do away with government charity and make people accountable for their own existence.
People got by before there was a welfare/food stamp program and all it is now is a democratic vote program.
As far as death penalty, I would be for it if they would cut out the 20 years of appeals crap and just get it over with quickly. As it is now, might as well give life with no parole.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
wil e coyote
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 95
Loc: misery (married)
|
|
. . . And driving is not a constitutional right. It is privilege granted by each state and can/should be regulated for the saftety of all.
Hmmmm , I need a bit of help here. Where exactly does it say in the constitution that foodstamps and individual welfare is a right??? I believe it to is a privilege granted by the States and Federal Government out of the kindness of their hearts and the pockets of hardworking taxpayers.
|
Hellbender
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
I suppose you have to believe that momma has enough money to support her habit, feed her kids,and raise them to be different then herself to believe that they are better off with her. It might be cost effective to get them away from her before they all become another burden to society.
It's probably cheaper to foster them as children then to support them as adults with another generation in the wings.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
Edited by Hellbender (06/18/12 12:53 PM)
|
Ozark
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods
|
|
Quote:
sptsman said:
Or feel free to call me something else. Quite frankly, I'm not real thrilled with being pigeon-holed into a catagory,
Yeah, I'm just messin' with ya. I agree that categories don't make much sense.
Me, I'm as "conservative" as anyone you could find about many things - you know that. BUT - I disagree with the conservatives when they try to legislate morality. I don't CARE if a guy wants to marry his fishing partner, or his horse for that matter. Why should I - mebbe it'd make the horse happy.
And it might surprise you to know that even though I've never taken an illegal drug in my life, I think they all oughta be legalized. Enormous industries exist now for both supplying and suppressing illegal drugs, and it's all a waste. People are gonna do what they're gonna do - and just like with alcohol a certain percentage of them will screw up their lives abusing that stuff. Let 'em.
So, am I a "conservative" or a "liberal"? Neither one, I think.
|
wil e coyote
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 95
Loc: misery (married)
|
|
Sounds like a conservative libertarian!
|
Paul Dallas
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1189
Loc: the corner of Bedlam & Squalor
|
|
I'm a card-carrying communist. Lets all share.
Paul Dallas
|
MB2
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5722
|
|
Quote:
wil e coyote said:
. . . And driving is not a constitutional right. It is privilege granted by each state and can/should be regulated for the saftety of all.
Hmmmm , I need a bit of help here. Where exactly does it say in the constitution that foodstamps and individual welfare is a right??? I believe it to is a privilege granted by the States and Federal Government out of the kindness of their hearts and the pockets of hardworking taxpayers.
And you have to first obtain a LICENSE from the state and maintain a good driving abstract, to keep a job driving a truck. It's an elegibility requirement, as is good health and vision.
State leaders have defended the program as “nothing more than an additional eligibility criteria,” noting that applicants are free to decline benefits if they do not want to be tested.
|
SwampFox
member
Reged: 12/13/05
Posts: 7970
Loc: Mid Mo
|
|
I've been a luke-warm supporter of The Defense Of Marriage Act.
But it suddenly occurred to me that half the married folks don't think its sacred otherwise they wouldn't have gotten divorced.
--------------------
"Being deeply learned and skilled, being well trained and using well spoken words; this is good luck."
|
sptsman
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 6198
Loc: Missouri
|
|
Quote:
wil e coyote said:
. . . And driving is not a constitutional right. It is privilege granted by each state and can/should be regulated for the saftety of all.
Hmmmm , I need a bit of help here. Where exactly does it say in the constitution that foodstamps and individual welfare is a right??? I believe it to is a privilege granted by the States and Federal Government out of the kindness of their hearts and the pockets of hardworking taxpayers.
I never claimed food stamps or welfare is a "right." My point is that we have evolved to a point where they are part of our society. We can argue all day long on whether or not they should even exist. We're past that point. In reality, they do exist and the law of unintended consequsnces has kick-in full force. You (and I) can make a compelling case that the welfare system may have put a few meals on tables but it has created a full blown disaster, in terms of long term dependence, by a whole class of people. We're on the same page there.
I think where we part ways is when you pretend that we can just pull the plug and it solves the problem. My contention is that it not only does not solve a single problem, it creates a few more. If you think it will be cheaper in the long run to simply put the children of any person using drugs into foster care or make them wards of the state, we're really far apart. I can only assume you know very little about the foster care program and what it takes for the state to take full control of a child. We would need thousands of more government employees and millions upon millions more funding. And what, pray tell, do you think becomes of a man or woman that has had their kids taken away and their funds cut off? Where do they end up and are we a better society for it? And who pays for it when they end up in a mental institution, hospital or prison? What about the inevitable crime victims that are created as they try to get money, any way they can?
I would just like for one person that support this idiocy to walk me through the whole scenario, when the food stamps and welfare checks are cut off and the kids are removed. And for anyone that tries, plese don't stop short, because the story doesn't end with cutting them off and taking the kids. Explain to me what happens with the adult that has been cut off? My contention is that 90%+ will end up costing us far more than the welfare check and food stamps they are getting now and that doesn't even take into consideration the cost of dealing with the kids. And please don't forget them. Putting a child in foster care, increases their odds of living a life of crime, unwanted pregancy, getting abused, dropping out of school, etc... significantly.
And don't even get me started on the death penalty... 
I guess my biggest problem with a lot of people that call themselves consevatives and grunt "Yeah.." when they support things like this (and the death penalty) is that they don't base their positions in reality. They tend to base their positions on some fantasy world where a person can be put to death in 3 months, if the evidence appears to be cut and dry (reminder, that is why many left the old world to come here). Or a world where "We shouldn't even have welfare anyway..." Well, guess what? We can't put people to death without exhaustive appeals to make sure it is correct (see the number of people on death row that have been set free after DNA shows they could not have been the killer). We can't pretned welfare doesn't exist. Live in reality and support solutions that can actually work...
Return fire...
--------------------
"Hunts are best measured by the endurance of the memories they produce..."
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
sptsman,
Other than calling other folks suggestions idiotic and basically just being antagonistic about the comments and why they won't work. I haven't read where you've offered a solution or "compromise" of your own; or are we, in your opinion just stuck with another "slave" class of folks forever?
Please enlighten us idiots.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
sptsman
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 6198
Loc: Missouri
|
|
Quote:
Nontypical said:
sptsman,
Other than calling other folks suggestions idiotic and basically just being antagonistic about the comments and why they won't work. I haven't read where you've offered a solution or "compromise" of your own; or are we, in your opinion just stuck with another "slave" class of folks forever?
Please enlighten us idiots.
I don't have the complete and total solution. I just know that any measures put in place should solve problems and make government smaller, not create more problems, cost us more money and make government bigger!!
I can solve the death penalty issue very easily. Once a person is convicted of a crime that would otherwise call for the death penalty, lock them up, segregate them from people, so they can't kill anyone else and let them die in prison. It would be much cheaper for the taxpayer and you never run the risk of killing an innocent person. They can still have all of their appeals, on the chance there was a miscarriage of justice.
The welfare issue is much more complicated. The existing system is like a runaway freight train. It's easy to say, "Just stop it..." it's another thing to actally stop a hundred car freight train. We've created such a class of dependent people, how do you even begin to change their culture? Every bone in my body says it starts with education and family. If these people are not well educated in the basics, they have little or no chance of ever breking the cycle. Black, white, hispanic, it doesn't matter. You simply can't expect anything to change, if they aren't educated and have basic family values. So how about very lucrative incentives for lower class people to graduate high school and go on to college or trade school? How about identifying the zip codes and income levels where poverty and welfare are accepted parts of the culture and giving them incentive to not have kids out of wedlock, to graduate high school, to go to college or trade school? If a person were given a voucher (only can be used for living exenses) for $10K upon high school graduation and free or greatly reduced college / trade school tution, you might see more people striving for it. Once they are educated, there is a greater chance they will break the cycle. eventually, you could put a dent in the number of people on the dole...
Most people will balk at the idea of giving Shaquanda or Roosevelt a chunk of money at high school graduation and free or reduced tution beyond that. But those same people are willing to pay money for more jails and prisons and know damn good and well, at least that much will go towards welfare for that same person, if they aren't educated. Again, the ket is breking the cycle.
--------------------
"Hunts are best measured by the endurance of the memories they produce..."
|
wil e coyote
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 95
Loc: misery (married)
|
|
Sptsman, Your idea to fix the death penalty problem would work except it would cost more $$$ You would need to upgrade the prisons and hire more guards etc to keep them isolated. I'm all for it but as you pointed out you can't get people to agree to pay the $$$
As for welfare you want to break the cycle. STOP THE TRAIN! or just slow it down. I think that's exactly what this thread was orig about. A dis-incentive to do drugs and therefore make the recipients more responsible! No-one said anything about ended it out right. Drug testing of recipients is just one of the hundreds of breaks that need to be applied to stop the train. As you said it is embedded in our culture now!!! To fix it will require many years of "baby steps" And yes it would require more people and $$$ to run the program , but as more dis-incentives are applied to the program eventually the program will shrink. And by all means add some positive incentives to get off too! They will also work as breaks on the train
|
MB2
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5722
|
|
Well, some don't seem to discriminate between races. They preach, but he doesn't seem to grasp that drugs are in fact the problem in regards to foster care.
You see, it's not the colour of your skin, but your breeding that either makes you a complete and whole person, and a child born to a drug addict, no matter what race, will always be a child at risk.
They seems to think that you can educate the DNA out of these children. If it were so, there wouldn't be college kids out on the streets today "Occupying" major metropolises, because the big, bad world owes them cheap tuition and a job.
And, a cop that will say this, "I've never done any drugs, myself." and without discriminating between pot, coke and heroin, makes one broad statement - that ALL drugs should be legal. Well, hell. I sho' 'nuff would hope that any cop I know is more streetwise than this. I don't expect a social worker.  I just expect that they would want a better world for their kids and grandkids.
But, you know.....just shrug your shoulders and brew more beer.
When my son was 2, and we were on our own the government paid for 1/2 of his daycare. The MINUTE my now husband moved in, I told the government to STOP. I'm WAY too proud to take from Peter to pay Paul. But, then I know from LIFE experience that not all drugs, men, women, and children are created equally. Some are BORN damaged, and I'll be damned if I was, so I worked to support him.
We've got more freakin' safety nets up here than Ringling Brothers, but I never depended on them so that I could grab the ring and fly. Including being employed by a union that shrugs and says, "That's not MY job!"
The minute you BECOME a mother or father, it's your job to make the world a better place. But, you CAN'T if you continually breed drug addicted and children who are not WHOLE into society.
As for homos, if we maybe coulda seen past saving them from themselves in the 80's, and let AIDS take them with their own black plague we might have spent more time getting rid of the drug problems that are killing our children.
Hindsight is 20/20. History is there to be learned from. Bad behaviour shouldn't be rewarded.
Foster parents here now earn $1,800/month tax free.
And I hope you've got your eyes WIDE open, because here if you ADOPT a child over 10 years of age, the government will give you $950.00 per month for their care.
THAT'S how many AT RISK children there are. We're ALREADY paying to get them homes, with LEGAL parents.
|
Ozark
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods
|
|
Quote:
MissBudweiser said:
And, a cop that will say this, "I've never done any drugs, myself." and without discriminating between pot, coke and heroin, makes one broad statement - that ALL drugs should be legal. Well, hell. I sho' 'nuff would hope that any cop I know is more streetwise than this. I don't expect a social worker. I just expect that they would want a better world for their kids and grandkids.
But, you know.....just shrug your shoulders and brew more beer.
Ouch, Miss B - that's gonna leave a mark!
Let me explain a little further. Yes, I've concluded that the "war on drugs" is hopeless, pours billions of dollars into criminal organizations, wastes more billions of public resources that could be used better, and does very little good. But no, I'm not advocating the use of drugs that are currently illegal - just sayin' I think they could be supressed better and more kids kept away from them with a different approach.
If all the FUN could be taken out of drugs - all the appeal of something that must be good, and cool, because it's forbidden, that would be a start. Ideally (and I know it'll never happen) drug use should be seen by society as a medical problem. Lookit that pitiful sod - he's gotta go to a doctor and get a prescription because he's hooked on that junk. Disgusting.
At the least, legalization of drugs and access through medical prescriptions only would take the money out of the trade. NONE of that crap could cost 50 cents a pound to produce - make it available by prescription only and make the prescriptions cheap and that would take all the big money out of it. THEN do a big public-education campaign starting with the early grades about how weak, pitiful, and un-cool the people are who use that stuff.
Yeah I know, it probably wouldn't work any better than what we're doing now because "special interests" (including law enforcement with a million cushy jobs at stake) would get into it and the program wouldn't be done right. I'm just dreaming of what oughta be and saying that what we're doing now is wasteful and isn't working - so cut me some slack there, B.
|
MB2
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5722
|
|
Quote:
Ozark said:
Quote:
MissBudweiser said:
And, a cop that will say this, "I've never done any drugs, myself." and without discriminating between pot, coke and heroin, makes one broad statement - that ALL drugs should be legal. Well, hell. I sho' 'nuff would hope that any cop I know is more streetwise than this. I don't expect a social worker. I just expect that they would want a better world for their kids and grandkids.
But, you know.....just shrug your shoulders and brew more beer.
Ouch, Miss B - that's gonna leave a mark!
Let me explain a little further. Yes, I've concluded that the "war on drugs" is hopeless, pours billions of dollars into criminal organizations, wastes more billions of public resources that could be used better, and does very little good. But no, I'm not advocating the use of drugs that are currently illegal - just sayin' I think they could be supressed better and more kids kept away from them with a different approach.
If all the FUN could be taken out of drugs - all the appeal of something that must be good, and cool, because it's forbidden, that would be a start. Ideally (and I know it'll never happen) drug use should be seen by society as a medical problem. Lookit that pitiful sod - he's gotta go to a doctor and get a prescription because he's hooked on that junk. Disgusting.
At the least, legalization of drugs and access through medical prescriptions only would take the money out of the trade. NONE of that crap could cost 50 cents a pound to produce - make it available by prescription only and make the prescriptions cheap and that would take all the big money out of it. THEN do a big public-education campaign starting with the early grades about how weak, pitiful, and un-cool the people are who use that stuff.
Yeah I know, it probably wouldn't work any better than what we're doing now because "special interests" (including law enforcement with a million cushy jobs at stake) would get into it and the program wouldn't be done right. I'm just dreaming of what oughta be and saying that what we're doing now is wasteful and isn't working - so cut me some slack there, B.
Now, c'mon. Admit it Oz. You're an old retired cop. You can say what the folks who still wear the uniform, can't.
Drugs, are for people who OPT OUT of society. They make them weak. They make them lazy. They make them not want to WORK.
Read any crime story, and they almost always involve drugs.
Why? Because they're addictive. Not because they're cool.
I'll be the first one to admit to you, that if someone offers me a toke, I'll share. Even with my kid, because this isn't the 'family values website'. And, the next day, I won't even think about it, or for months following. That's because I'm not addicted, and don't bow to 'peer pressure'. Might be why I'm so laid back. 
Drugs have the ability to make SLAVES of everyone of us. People in law enforcement, employers and employees. It's there in crime, and it's there in lost productivity in the workplace.
I was listening to talk radio the other day, as I mostly do, and it was about a recent report on lost productivity within The Canadian Government. On AVERAGE their employees take an extra 8 days (1 & 1/2 days per month) each year off, more than their 'sick-time allowance'.
Still not concerned? Literally, it translates that each day of the year, more Canadian federal government employees take an extra day off, than Ford and GM Canada employ each day.
Why? We don't know, we can't ask.
And, you wonder why North Americans can't compete with workers worldwide?
And Obama, is giving Mexican drug lords guns? There's your billions of dollars it costs you. Drug the people. Breed addiction into their children.
These are terrorists, and yet no one called to impeach him.
It's not like he rolled around on the floor with Lewinsky for fun & games, he is seriously debilitating the state of the union.
|
Ozark
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods
|
|
OK, Miss B - Let's say it's 1920, and I'll take the liberty of substituting "alcohol" wherever you say "drugs":
----------------------------------------
"Alcohol is for people who OPT OUT of society. It makes them weak. It makes them lazy. It makes them not want to WORK.
Read any crime story, and they almost always involve alcohol.
Why? Because it's addictive. Not because it's cool.
...........
Alcohol has the ability to make SLAVES of everyone of us. People in law enforcement, employers and employees. It's there in crime, and it's there in lost productivity in the workplace."
Yup, everything you say is true about both drugs and alcohol. So?
From 1920 to 1932 the U.S. had the 18th amendment, Prohibition of alcohol. Canadians weren't nearly so dumb. Prohibition was unenforceable, it eroded respect for the law, and it contributed greatly to criminal activity and organizations. Just like the "war on drugs".
I don't have any solution to suggest, and that's not surprising because we haven't solved the alcohol problem either, have we? We just found that it was better to legalize and control alcohol as best we can, and I suspect that will be true of drugs too, in time.
|
griffin
administrator
Reged: 12/13/05
Posts: 9630
Loc: the most dangerous city in Ame...
|
|
I'm going to make a few comments and never post on this thread again:
I taught DARE for 3 years. I worked undercover for 5 years buying and selling drugs....and getting to know drug users/dealers. I worked Hwy drug interdiction for 3 years. I have supervised an investigative unit, to include 2 officers in a DEA task force, and 4 officers who work undercover, among other officers, for 6 years. In any court in the land I would be considered an "expert witness" to testify on drug crimes.
You ready?
Nobody stays away from drugs because they are illegal. The "law" is never considered when a person decides to try drugs.....it's just not.
Enforcement agencies don't care one rats arse about confiscating drugs or arresting drug users.....they care about how much money they can sieze...because they can use it to fund LOTS of new toys/officers/overtime, etc.
There is no "war on drugs".....there is a WAR FOR ILLICIT CURRENCY!!! Period.
Take the money out of it, the "war" is over.
I firmly believe that the rate of users will not go up, with regard to ANY drug, if they are decriminalized. There is a model for this.....prohibition...it was a dismal failure and bred widespread crime and corruption.
And in case nobody is paying attention.....pharmacies already distribute the overwhelming majority of drugs to addicts......and it's legal.
Carry on.
griffin
--------------------
"The Irish are one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." - Sigmund Freud
|
MB2
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5722
|
|
The original question was:
"How is the drug testing of welfare recipents 'unconstitutional'.
The answer is - it's not.
They are trying to make it a requirement of the benefit, in which case, recipients have the 'right to pursue their own happiness'. They just have to take the test. Perhaps they should have the price of that test deducted from their benefits.
Each and everyone of us have the right to pursue our own happiness, however, no matter how you earn your living there are certain REQUIREMENTS that you MUST meet.
If I were to try to obtain a green card to work in the States, Homeland Security has placed certain REQUIREMENTS on me. I have to prove that my money is CLEAN, I have to submit to a criminal records examination. I have to give a DNA sample. I have to submit to a drug test. All of which, I would NEED to pay for personally along with application filing fees.
If I was to hire someone, I could ask them to meet certain requirements, and the government would require me to meet their STANDARDS in regards to their placement.
Law enforcement officers, are required to have some of the strictest hiring practices of all. They also vary by branch, but if you don't want the job, don't take the test.
Oz, the Bronfman family is still alive and well, and Edgar still has the nickname "Bootlegger" in Hollywood. Illicit money is the problem with drug cartels, and from prohibition on, these people still wield a great deal of power, over little folks like us.
I don't know what the answer is either, but you cannot make a weak man strong, by carrying him on your back.
|
Ozark
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods
|
|
Miss B - You Canadians are doing it all wrong. If ya want to live in the land of the big PX, you don't have to do all that crap. Just:
(1) Fly to Tijuana.
(2) Walk across the US border, and stay.
If you can convince the Democrats that illegal immigrant Canadians will breed future Democrat voters, and if you can convince the Republicans that you'll work cheap and increase business profits - then both parties will work like hell to make sure you're not sent back to your frozen homeland. Es verdad.
As per the original question - drug testing welfare recipients shouldn't violate any rights, 'cause they don't have to apply for welfare. If you don't want to be tested, don't have your hand out.
Same with driving - people don't HAVE to get a driver's license and insurance because they don't HAVE to drive. But that brings us to the interesting question the Supreme Court is about to decide, the "individual mandate" of health insurance. Can the government force citizens to buy a product from a private companey just because they're alive, and with no way to opt out?
I've got my opinion on that, and it'll be real interesting to see what the Supremes say.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
