Right, chocolate is next, mister. Then maybe pure butter drizzled on pancakes, dripping with maple syrup. Or coffee, dark and rich, full of caffeine. Ban certain sugars while you're at it, "bad" carbs in general. No more pasta or potato dishes. The end of dairy cheeses. Someone may gain weight or have a heart attack. Even good things in excess can be bad. Where do you draw the line? How would that make life more enjoyable and even worth living, FFS.Originally Posted by EyeKhan
What's wrong with caffeine?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Denying welfare being passed out due to drug abuse is a very problematic thing to do.
Because unless you subscribe to the (imho moronic) notion that it only needs a "strong will" to overcome drug addiction, where before you had people with one problem (drug abuse), you now have people with two problems: A drug problem and no money.
Bad combination, in my opinion.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I don't mind this idea, possible government corruption aside, although I agree with everyone else that the state should pay for it. I also wouldn't mind seeing a clause that says that being in a rehab program, publically funded or otherwise, also qualifies you.
If you see the goal of these programs as being to help people get back on their feet, then it shouldn't matter. Drug addicts pretty much never get back on their feet while still actively addicted, and especially with a clause that lets them get into rehab to qualify, this helps identify problems and encourages people to help solve their addiction issues.
This just seems like a bit of overkill. Is there really that much room/disposable income in the welfare system for people to buy drugs? Is this really a major problem?
And won't this just dump drug addicts who need treatment into the streets where they'll just commit crimes to get their fix? It seems like a pretty good way to funnel borderline cases into prison.
My concern is that it might distract rehabilitators (of the unemployed) and turn them into [worse] jerks. My impressions from the various changes that have been made to Swedish welfare and healthcare is that it can be tricky for a person to handle two very different missions, or to juggle two very different views of people. It's kinda like a doctor having profit as an important mission, or viewing people as essentially being assholes that don't deserve to live. The profit motive frequently distracts doctors from practicing good medicine. And misanthropy, while rare, probably isn't any more helpful. Or if your doctor decided he should also be your mother in law or your priest or the tea party to your Obama. All of these things jeopardise the alliance with the patient and the mission to do good. When it comes to rehabilitating addicts, being a confrontantional hardass is among tbe best ways to fuck up.
If a person or a system is tasked with supporting people who've fallen on hard times and helping them get back to a good life then that mission shouldn't be hijacked by other missions that have to do with vague concerns about welfare money going to weed. Or some sort of fuzzy anger. Just stay in good touch with welfare recipients and build good relationships with them.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That's a pretty vacuous rationale.
If this is implemented, how will they (or will they?) differentiate between illegal opium and legal (prescribed) opiates for pain control? Or will having a chronic pain problem automatically disqualify you? Or what about the poor sucker who just had dental (or any other) surgery and was given a temporary prescription for Vicodin? Actually, quite a few perfectly benign, over-the-counter, legal drugs can show up as something else on a drug test!
Frankly, I would prefer my tax dollars (yes, I know I don't work right now but that's beside the point) go to "help" someone have a home, food, and pay for his/her own street drugs, rather than seeing that same addict lose all benefits, including housing and food. That person, living on the street, won't care that it took you 10 hours (or whatever) to buy that nice big screen tv or new laptop. All he sees is something he can pawn for drug money!
Since this has already been declared unconstitutional in other states, I can't quite see where the governor of Florida thinks his law will suddenly be constitutional. I might be wrong, but I seem to remember it was declared unconstitutional because it tends to be 1. racist and 2. violation of the right to the reasonable expectation of being considered innocent until convicted of a crime.
Last edited by oldmunchkin; 06-04-2011 at 08:21 AM. Reason: Too much punctuation. Must be the drugs!
I don't have a problem with authority....I just don't like being told what to do!Remember, the toes you step on today may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow!RIP Fluffy! 01-07-09 I'm so sorry Fluffster! People who don't like cats were probably mice in an earlier life! My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!The nice part about living in a small town: When you don't know what you're doing, someone else always does!
Atari bullshit refugee!!
It's what happens. People can buy it when it comes to smearing socialised healthcare or Goldman Sachs, but for some reason they have a hard time buying problems with conflicts of interest it when it comes to things they like.
Btw, speaking of good ideas, should all beneficiaries of medicare undergo mandatory unselected testing for every vice we can think of as being relevant to health? Should their care be contingent on that? How about emergency services?
How about screening everyone for signs of terrorism and making their right to have a regular life be contingent on submitting to such investigation?
If 50% of American income earners pay zero federal tax but make use of various federal services, should their right to use those services be contingent on their willingness to submit to mandatory drug tests or anything of the sort?
Last edited by Aimless; 06-04-2011 at 11:49 AM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
How about displaying the prescription?
Show the prescription.Or what about the poor sucker who just had dental (or any other) surgery and was given a temporary prescription for Vicodin?
Yes if we're talking about a sports drug test, which is why certain benign, over-the-counter, legal drugs are proscribed for athletes. But if you're testing for illegal drugs only ...Actually, quite a few perfectly benign, over-the-counter, legal drugs can show up as something else on a drug test!
[qutoe]Frankly, I would prefer my tax dollars (yes, I know I don't work right now but that's beside the point) go to "help" someone have a home, food, and pay for his/her own street drugs, rather than seeing that same addict lose all benefits, including housing and food. That person, living on the street, won't care that it took you 10 hours (or whatever) to buy that nice big screen tv or new laptop. All he sees is something he can pawn for drug money![/quote] Well I don't.
There's nothing racist about treating all drug users the same, unless you think perhaps drug users are racially identifiable? I know white illegal drug users, and I know that the US President is black. Its pretty racist to assume drug user = black.
I believe in caffeine disappeared from America Suddenly and permanently, civilization as we know it would collapse. We need these good drugs GG. Work depends upon them. Now, sugary sodas and juices on the other hand, nobody needs those except the shareholders of the company's that produce and market them. Ban them and punish anyone that sells or buys them. Anfpd if you don't exercise at least 3 X per week, regardless of your weight, then you pay a fine. If you are fat, you get incarcerated during off work hours where your diet is stricly controlled until you reach a healthy weight.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Yes, daddy. Whatever you say. Does that mean no more bacon on Sunday mornings? Anything else?
I don't know how this testing is going to be done, but I remember being drug tested and being told I could not get that job because I had opiates in my system! Period! Prescription or not, it didn't matter! Then too, haven't you heard of prescription drug abuse? It seems to happen more and more all the time. If testing like this is allowed, I see the future coming when Mr. Gov. Hotshit decrees that NO drugs that can be abused can be in the system! Period! Because, of course, there is NEVER a reason for someone on welfare to be on a drug, legal or illegal! They should be spending THEIR money on only state approved items!
There was a time, not too many years ago, that drug tests picked up ibuprofen as marijuana! I'm not sure about now, since I haven't been subjected to an illegal search of my body fluids in years, but I assume there could possibly be more OTC drugs that mimic the results of illicit drugs in the system!Yes if we're talking about a sports drug test, which is why certain benign, over-the-counter, legal drugs are proscribed for athletes. But if you're testing for illegal drugs only ...
You would prefer some slug robbed you at gunpoint to get money for his/her drug of choice? You would prefer coming home to that nice home you have, and finding anything that is worth pawning is gone?Well I don't.
You haven't looked at the incarceration rates for drug crimes lately I guess. The vast majority of those jailed on drug crimes are minorities! What about the crap the SCOTUS just heard about the difference in sentences for possessing 1 gram of powder coke vs. 1 gram rock coke?There's nothing racist about treating all drug users the same, unless you think perhaps drug users are racially identifiable? I know white illegal drug users, and I know that the US President is black. Its pretty racist to assume drug user = black.
The vast majority of people I know would keel over in a big heap if they weren't allowed their coffee!
People in certain jobs should be drug tested! Pilots, bus drivers, train engineers, cops and firemen are all that I can think of that should be FORCED to take a drug test and should be told what they are allowed to do on their "off" hours! Maybe I should throw in all elected officials, all state workers, and teachers should have their lifestyles curtailed in the name of "fairness"! After all, they shouldn't be allowed a life of any kind without Big Brother watching! Because, you know, they aren't smart enough to decide how to live their own lives! Or how about college students? They should all be drug tested, at their own cost, because WE are paying their way through scholarships! Oh yeah, pet owners should be tested too! After all, that is money that could be spent on pet care instead!
Hmmm! Maybe you have something with the fat people idea! After all, they aren't capable of making good decisions for their lives without help from Big Brother! It doesn't matter if they have a job that pays well enough to pay for all their absurd usage of food!
Of course, skinny people should be subjected to the same type of treatment! But, they should be forced to gain weight by consuming a high calorie diet while in jail 16 hours a day. Fuck sleep...make 'em eat!
I have a question! If someone tests positive for marijuana for instance, will they be arrested on the spot? After all, according to DUI laws, having a substance in your system means possession!
I don't have a problem with authority....I just don't like being told what to do!Remember, the toes you step on today may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow!RIP Fluffy! 01-07-09 I'm so sorry Fluffster! People who don't like cats were probably mice in an earlier life! My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!The nice part about living in a small town: When you don't know what you're doing, someone else always does!
Atari bullshit refugee!!
Florida is notorious for its prescription drug abuse. I wouldn't be surprised if our governor's former business supports him with a zero tolerance policy.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Btw, what ARE the false positive rates for these tests? Predictive value, likelihood ratio, whatevs
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If that happened the person should be locked up. Prison works - once they're in prison they can't commit any more crimes.You would prefer some slug robbed you at gunpoint to get money for his/her drug of choice? You would prefer coming home to that nice home you have, and finding anything that is worth pawning is gone?
I've always come disturbed a burglar who broke my window open to get inside the house. He got arrested and confessed to breaking and entering into my home, another one he was caught red handed on, and 18 others. Sentenced to ... a suspended sentence.
So what? If we're race-neutral that ought to be irrelevant.You haven't looked at the incarceration rates for drug crimes lately I guess. The vast majority of those jailed on drug crimes are minorities!
Hey, that crack vs. powder sentencing disparity thing is really interesting, thanks for the tip
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This takes effect this week. Still the poors' responsibility to somehow pay the governor's old business for the drug test.
Governor's quote during signing: "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," which is a hell of a thing to suggest about welfare recipients.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Indeed, the right-on thing to say would be that the Florida taxpayers should of course subsidise drug addiction.
No they should subsidize a useless private business instead, right? You really weren't paying attention during this thread were you
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes, I was.
Seems that (against my wishes) the taxpayer isn't subsidising the testing, those who want to claim "free money" for doing nothing with their lives off the state have to pay for it. Not what I proposed but better than any alternative.
Still you'd have to ask how fair it is to have to prove you're innocent. Especially if you're not using, then why should you take a cut out of your already meagre outcome to get your non-use certified?
Congratulations America
You don't have to, you don't have to request welfare. Nobody is forcing anyone to get it.
and thats the fucked up thinking of our TeaParty pet governor. No one is forcing you to eek out a survival. There are jobs for everyone, only the lazy and useless need welfare.
Its already been admitted that this program wouldn't find enough violators to be worth it if it was funded properly. That was never the point. The point is to add yet another hurdle that will make it that much more difficult for that many more people to seek government assistance. But you can't admit that, you need a smokescreen, and constantly suggesting that welfare recipients are possible drug users seems to be our governor's thing. Tying in businesses that your family not only owns stock in, but created, thats just icing.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Well, I see you don't like to have fun.
Praise the man who seeks the truth, but run from the one who has found it.
Yeah, but if you need it, that means you are already low on cash. So essentially they are taking money from the welfare program and putting it in the pockets of the governor's ex company. You don't see anything wrong with that? You keep handing out pretty much the same amount of welfare (they admitted that not enough people would fail the test to make a worthwhile as an expense cut), but the people who need it get less of it. How is that not a retarded idea to you?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I agree that it shouldn't be linked to any individual company like that.
Its not retarded if it doesn't go into the hands of drug dealers.
Right, agreed there but that amount is apparently minimal (otherwise it'd have been cost efficient to have the state pay for the test). And considering you're all into that cost efficiency: the government spends just as much, and significantly less ends up where it is intended. Sounds like a stupid idea to me.
Hell, if anything this pushes more people towards criminality, not just drug users (who now have to get their money elsewhere), but also people for who the test is simply too expensive and need to get money somehow. I would not be surprised at all if this entire scheme ends up with equal drug users, more criminality, and more government money wasted. But hey, why try to find a real solution when you can also shift money towards your old company instead?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Significantly less ends up where its not intended too, you keep omitting that bit.
I think it can be done to be cost-efficient.
Significantly? I doubt that. Got proof for it? Or any concrete reason why it would be cost-efficient? Because it apparently is not, which is why they make people buy it themselves. The program doesn't give any indication that it tries to improve the situation, just that it wants to take money from poor people's benefits and give it to a company.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote