Only 12 in Utah out of 4730

[One Brow]

Fair enough. I am arguing against the double standard. Do employees not deserve the same protection?

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).

 

[babe]

From the last paragraph of the article:



So, no money saved. Instead, additional money will be spent on substance abuse treatments.

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.

 

[Stoked]

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).

No you wouldn't.

 

[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).

 

[Stoked]

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.

 

[bordelais7]

From the last paragraph of the article:

So, no money saved. Instead, additional money will be spent on substance abuse treatments.

Well, this is definitely a blow to my proposal, then.

 

[Harambe]

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=26559995&n...re-drug-screening&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-11

Drug use among welfare recipients was 0.25% of the tested. Once again, it seems it costs more to test welfare recipients for drugs than you save.

So, did they vote on/implement this before Florida's testing of this process?

 

[One Brow]

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.

 

[bordelais7]

I don't know. Not that it matters. Drug testing welfare recipients has never been about saving money, that's just the cover.

Was it even the cover? I thought it was just a point on the side, and that the issue at hand was "hey, we don't think welfare recipients should be spending money on drugs".

 

[Stoked]

I don't know. Not that it matters. Drug testing welfare recipients has never been about saving money, that's just the cover.

Bordelais beat me to it and had a better answer.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Bordelais beat me to it and had a better answer.

It's just really weird that anyone is making such a big stink and wasting taxpayer money about an issue that affects <0.025 of the targetted group AND has the added benefit of being insulting and prejudiced.

But sure, you can make that argument.

 

[Stoked]

It's just really weird that anyone is making such a big stink and wasting taxpayer money about an issue that affects <0.025 of the targetted group AND has the added benefit of being insulting and prejudiced.

But sure, you can make that argument.

I think that is a crock.

As for the amount of waste. It does appear this is a drop in the ocean. I think it has more to do with it being allowed for employment. Sour apples

Edit: I can see and give you the insulting part.