Reply With Quote
Nothing says your argument has legs like putting up complete and utter red herrings like this.
In the bottom line it is the same. Its a government expense. Does it not cost money to provide drug addicts with police protection? Does it not cost money to provide drug addicts access to roads and public education? If the argument here is that rejecting drug users can save money then why is that argument not used across the board?
Why are people who are on welfare somehow considered to be high risk for drug abuse? That is certainly not a conclusion you can draw from the numbers of those tested. I'm fairly possible the levels of drug use among the general population is far higher than 2%.
And what happens to people who are rejected under programs like this? Are they somehow not a burden on society in a financial manner any longer? People don't just disappear once they get rejected by the welfare office and one way or another you're going to foot the bill whether you like it or not.
Nothing says your argument has legs like putting up complete and utter red herrings like this.
I actually think the Chester the Molester hypothetical is more analogous than roads and the police tbh.
The difference is that roads and the police are a provision that apply to everyone. They are not government en lements that are provided to a group selected by the government. Sure they are both government expenses, but that's not really the important difference. Welfare is a program focuses on a select minority of (impoverished) Americans.
And your still neglecting the government's right to determine how and when it spends money. Surely you don't think that a welfare recipient has a right to some crack rock, right? How's the government supposed to stop people from using government funds on drugs?
Because one of the pitfalls of poverty is drug abuse. It sucks but its true.
I also find it hard to believe that the number is 2%. I'm sure someone here can find studies with higher %s
Simple. They learn to not do drugs. Or they suffer. You're ignoring the fact that they're going to be a drain on society either way. Hopefully, with counseling and the threat of losing money, they'd make a responsible choice.
People on welfare aren't being asked to carry any more of a burden than anyone who wants to work for or with the government are.
Why? Molestation is a crime that involves direct harm against another person? Drug use? Not so much. One is a crime no one believes should be legal while the other is something that can be argued for legalization.
In any event, the point stands that if the argument is cost cutting due to drug use there are plenty of ways to do it if the government is actually serious about going after anyone other than the easy targets. You've made it abundantly clear by comparing welfare recipients to child molesters how you view them.
If you want to make the argument in differentiation of government services and why that should be the case then feel free. I'm pretty sure whatever you decide to pull out can be applied to safety net's as well so lets see what you have.
Are state governments required to provide welfare? If not required, but provided by the states anyway, why can't they craft welfare policy in the way they want (i.e., to require drug testing)?
Last edited by vy65; 08-30-2011 at 11:04 AM.
I view meth heads the same way I view child molesters tbh. Both are liabilities to society and should be gassed to death in a manner similar to the holocaust.
For one, this isn't a federal issue as neither are police and fire protection so I'm not sure why you're using that as a yard stick.
I'll reply to the rest later - I've actually got work to do now (god damn it).
You seriously don't think crack-cocaine is a crime no one things should be illegal? That doesn't hurt anyone?
I never compared welfare recipients to child abusers. What I compared was how your argument also supports a child molesters "right" to use public property for criminal purposes.
As for the rest, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. My point was just that the government has a (cons utional) right to drug test. I'd imagine the savings are higher, but I need to see more statistics.
You're right - I'll edit. But the point still is the same.
Once they money exchange hands, they certainly have that right.
By catching the drug dealers and offering counseling to addicts?
You don't have a right to consume. However, you do have a right to be secure in your person.
And BTW, my concern isn't with the druggies. It's with the non-stop erosion of privacy rights under the guise of catching druggies.
They have a right to commit a crime? The government can't condition how money it provides is spent?
Because that works so well.
Of course you do. No one forces you to sign up for welfare.
Not drug trasting in general, drug testing for people on welfare. The people who are abusing the welfare system are some of the laziest people youll ever meet and if they happen to be doing drugs, they're not going to let an easilly passable drug test stop them from doung what theyve been doing for years, which is making a career from screwing the government. They're not going to find jobs. They're too ing lazy.
They have a right to spend it as they see fit. Let's not be disingenuous here, it's pretty simple to turn even foodstamps into cash. Once it's cash, government has no say on it.
Irrelevant, really. That is one the functions of government, combat illegal activity through law enforcement. That's lacking is not the druggie's fault though.
You're not forced to run for public office either, and the SCOTUS decided that arbitrary drug testing is a violation of the 4th amendment all the same.
The obvious solution is that those who wish to use drugs and receive welfare should just declare themselves candidates for elected office. Then they're cons utionally protected from drug testing. Since, you know, we have no colorable reason to test political candidates.
No they don't. When the government provides money that it otherwise is not required to give, said money doesn't come NSA.
You're right that it's easy to turn foodstamps to cash and use it for whatever. That doesn't mean you have a right to do so.
The whole point was irrelevant. The government is free to choose the best way it sees fit to fight drug use. If that means testing welfare recipients, so be it.
The right to participate in government is not the same as the right to receive a handout.
And who said anything about testing welfare recipients is arbitrary?
The better argument is: you have no cons utional right to welfare, but you have a cons utional right to run for office. Because of that, the government can restrict welfare access in ways that it cannot when it comes to running for public office.
They certainly have the right to purchase whatever legitimate items that can purchase, and turn around and sell such items. The burden is on you to prove they cannot do that.
But drug use isn't what we're arguing here. Otherwise why limit it to welfare recipients? Do you think mandatory drug testing of the entire population would fly? I don't think it will on the same grounds as public officials.
It is the same from the perspective of your 'forced' argument. Neither is forced to do anything.
It is arbitrary because there's other welfare recipients in the form of tax cuts or government stimulus checks and they're not required to subject themselves to the same testing.
I don't argue that Congress has a right to limit it as it see fits. The argument is wether drug testing is a violation of the 4th amendment, and wether requiring such testing is uncons utional.
Basically.
Huh? I don't see what this has to do with anything. Of course, they have a right to buy whatever legal items they want. You initially said they had a right to spend it on *whatever* they saw fit. I said no, you can't use welfare to buy your crack rock. I think you've missed my point.
We're talking about the ability of welfare recipients to spend their money on drugs. That's why its limited to welfare recipients. I don't think that general drug testing would fly - that hypothetical is irrelevant to the question of welfare recipients.
See my edit above.
It's definitely not arbitrary given the strong correlation between poverty and drug abuse. You don't think poverty predisposes one to drugs/drug abuse?
Tax Cuts/Stimulus Checks are not what we're talking about.
Last edited by vy65; 08-30-2011 at 12:25 PM.
its stupid and not cost effective cause its not random.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions