Only 12 in Utah out of 4730

[Stoked]

When you cannot achieve an objective and your efforts are likely to have negative consequences, yes.

"securing the border" won't keep illegals out. It will however drive them to more drastic measures and increase the payday for coyotes(people smugglers)

likewise

Drug testing recipients of gov aide won't slow drug use. It may lead to children of drug addicts getting fed less, or peeing in a cup for daddy.

Good intentions don't necessarily create good results.

True. It doing nothing is a shifty answer. Fight the good fight.

 

[Nate505]

I support an honest effort to ensure that our publicly funded assistance is not spent on drugs.

That's fine, as long as they test them for booze and tobacco too. I certainly don't want them spending money on those things. Soda and coffee and other things probably aren't necessary either.

 

[Nate505]

True but when challeneged in court it is not struck down. So why should public assistance be any different? T ruth be told I think it should be the reverse. No drug test to work (minus jobs like paramedic, police...) and drug screening for public assistance.

But since it's optional when it comes to public funds to spend money on drug testing there should be some sort of compelling reason to do so.

If some mindless corporation wants to drug test because they believe that in spite of an applicant going thru all the hoops of their hiring process would be a bad employee because they use whatever drugs they consider bad, fine with me. But when it comes to the government hiring, it better be a good reason like they don't want a guy flying an airplane intoxicated on anything. Most regular government jobs don't drug test, because there isn't a compelling safety reason to do so. I don't see one for welfare recipients either. And since they don't test for legal drugs I see no reason for them to test for illegal ones either. From my perspective it makes no difference to me if they blow their money on weed or whiskey or heroin.

 

[NUMBERICA]

True but when challeneged in court it is not struck down. So why should public assistance be any different?

Because it's government money and they have to abide by a different set of rules.

 

[NUMBERICA]

From my perspective it makes no difference to me if they blow their money on weed or whiskey or heroin.

There is a quantifiable physiological difference between the three. Namely, that one of those three doesn't carry a significant risk for physical dependency (and that that same drug is also easiest to test for by far, in addition to being the only schedule 1 drug of the three [I still have a tough time processing this information in relative terms]).

 

[One Brow]

What if the purpose wasn't necessarily to save money but to save peoples lives and get less people to use drugs?

Why focus on a population that uses drugs less than average, if that is your purpose?

 

[One Brow]

I support an honest effort to ensure that our publicly funded assistance is not spent on drugs.

So far, every effort has found that you wind up spending more money on drug testing than you save on benefits, for a population that uses drugs with lower frequency. Your response did not address that.

Do you support honest efforts that publicly funded assistance not be spent on drugs, even when that effort will use more money than they save and target a population that already uses drugs less frequently than the general population? Is that principle worth spending extra money on, for you?

 

[Stoked]

That's fine, as long as they test them for booze and tobacco too. I certainly don't want them spending money on those things. Soda and coffee and other things probably aren't necessary either.

Are those things established as illegal by our society? No. So that arguement does not hold water.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

What if the purpose wasn't necessarily to save money but to save peoples lives and get less people to use drugs?

I laughed like Santa Claus when I read this

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Stoked is dogmatic. The State must be an unwaivering war machine for the good. What's "good" is never in doubt.





Not being dramatic here: that's the basic outline of fascism.

 

[Stoked]

Stoked is dogmatic. The State must be an unwaivering war machine for the good. What's "good" is never in doubt.

Not being dramatic here: that's the basic outline of fascism.

You are just so full of ******** and notions of intellectual superiority that it is funny.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

You are just so full of ******** and notions of intellectual superiority that it is funny.

I gave an accurate analysis of how you have viewed State power in this thread (and others). You can dodge this accuracy by slandering me, but it'll be just that -- a dodge.