It's still $31k, not $55k. Which probably results in a net gain for the program.
If so, I propose that any money "recovered" from this program be applied to a Message Board Mathematics initiative.
Only 12 in Utah out of 4730
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
It's still $31k, not $55k. Which probably results in a net gain for the program.
If so, I propose that any money "recovered" from this program be applied to a Message Board Mathematics initiative.
Are you also opposed to drug testing for employment?
I am for it for public assistance but will not fight/debate for it if drug testing for employment (yes I know not all employment does so) was struck down.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
my bad I read it 30,000 to screen 25,000 to test.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
As a business owner I feel it is my prerogative to test or not too. If you want to smoke pot then don't work for someone who will test you. I think that even if pot were legal businesses should still be able to test if they want to. I am a smoker and if someone didn't want to hire me because I smoked I would think they were a jerk but well within their rights.
If that is the standard than it should be applied to those receiving public assistance as well.
I agree with your premise. However it would lead to plenty of lawsuits for you.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I think that the government should tread lightly but a private enterprise is just that, private.
I think frivolous lawsuits like this are ridiculous. If you think your employer is a jerk apply for a job with their competitor. I realize that is not the way things are but I see no reason why it shouldn't be.
P.S. I said frivolous so please no safety arguments, anyone.
I was not arguing that I agree with the lawsuits or disagree. Just pointing out that under the current law they could sue you for discrimination.
The arguement being made agaisnt drug testing for public assistance is civil rights. Well if that is the case it means that peoples civil rights were being infringed by employers drug testing right? We already see this happening with the refusal of business to gay couples. Such as the bakery that just lost the case for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Why should they all have that protection but not employees? Foolish.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I know.
In my view the government does not have the right to discriminate against gay people or anyone else private individuals and groups do(as disgusting as it may be). The way to get a private companies and churches to stop discriminatory practices should be through boycott and protest not lawsuits. Do you think the federal government should force the LDS church to allow gay people to get married in their temples?
Fair enough. I am arguing agaisnt the double standard. Do employees not deserve the same protection?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I don't see it as an argument for/against protection. I see it as a morality issue and therefore the government should stay out of it. I think private people and institutions should have the right to make their own moral judgements.
If it is the governments goal to make sure these people don't starve,(and that is the argument for gov aid) then you are saying that you think that someone who is addicted to drugs(probably pot) should starve.
A private organization may have all sorts of goals that might lead them to drug testing.(operate machinery, take care of children and the elderly, be a role model,etc)
I would say it is challenging those those who support the drug-testing policy to justify it despite the cost. I'm opposed to it for other reasons than cost.
From the last paragraph of the article:
So, no money saved. Instead, additional money will be spent on substance abuse treatments.
To claim that there is a double standard, you would have to say that 1) the influence and effect of an employer in a person's life has the same broad degree of influence, to the extant that the civil liberty against unreasonable searches is being violated or some similar notion, and 2) the effect of being denied employment is equivalent to the effect of not receiving public assistance. I can see some decent argument being made for 1), but I don't think you have a good argument for 2).
Is this another version of the Reo./Dem non-discussion with the two sides not ever arguing about the same thing? Reps raising fictitious objections based on the "cost/benefit" argument vs. . . . . . holy cow. . . . democrats arguing about the stupidity of one more totally ineffective and socially undesirable intrusion of government into personal matters??????
game One Brow.
No you wouldn't.
Then they are just different standards for different situations, and not a double-standard (which by definition is different standards in the same situation).
You can view it however you wish. It's crap.
Well, this is definitely a blow to my proposal, then.
So, did they vote on/implement this before Florida's testing of this process?
I don't know. Not that it matters. Drug testing welfare recipients has never been about saving money, that's just the cover.