Drug Testing

[j4m35]

Here's an idea: don't break the law, and you'll have more privileges than those in the country who don't break the law. Don't like the law? Find somewhere else to live. Simple as that.

spoken like a true red-blooded american. what about people who can't afford to move out of the country?

read discipline and punish by michel foucault. when law is set up by the upper echelons of society, law is set up inherently against the lower classes. this especially affects people in jail for drug offenses, namely crack cocaine. crack cocaine users are the ones who i'm assuming people are talking about in this thread when they say "drug users."

"The report includes recent data that indicates that African Americans make up 15 percent of the country’s drug users, yet they make up 37 percent of those arrested for drug violations, 59 percent of those convicted, and 74 percent of those sentenced to prison for a drug offense. More than 80 percent of the defendants sentenced for crack offenses are African American, despite the fact that more than 66 percent of crack users are white or Hispanic."

from: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/aclu....acial-ineq uity

the problem isn't drug users. its a lot bigger than that.

[hankmurphy]

The welfare system is being used to keep people down. Instead of allowing them to provide for themselves, the system gives them free money to live off of. These people are dependent on the government, and keeping them dependent is part of what's keeping them down.

If the government wants to help they could work to make jobs available, build affordable housing and community gardens, provide childcare for working mothers, offer free public transportation, etc. Welfare could be a lot more than just handing over a small check.

I know welfare is necessary at this point, but I don't think it's helpful in the long run.

[j4m35]

The welfare system is being used to keep people down. Instead of allowing them to provide for themselves, the system gives them free money to live off of. These people are dependent on the government, and keeping them dependent is part of what's keeping them down.

If the government wants to help they could work to make jobs available, build affordable housing and community gardens, provide childcare for working mothers, offer free public transportation, etc. Welfare could be a lot more than just handing over a small check.

I know welfare is necessary at this point, but I don't think it's helpful in the long run.

your second paragraph is spot on. although those initiatives need to happen, that kind of shit doesn't happen overnight. while we cultivate and develop those programs you mentioned, the people who need help the most will still be needing help. it's not a magic trick, it's a long process. i have faith it can be rectified in time.

[lonesomexloveus]

no one wants to hear it right now (especially not the republicans), but the country needs to spend more money on job creation to get out of this economic funk. world war II helped to get us out of the great depression by creating so many military related jobs, and this country needs to do the same now (in terms of job creation) if they want people to stop being so dependent on welfare.

it of course wouldn't curb all abuse of the system, but it would help.

[harryq]

Today I learned about HF589, a bill in Iowa that will make it illegal to film animal abuse at CAFOs and other animal facilities.

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-IC....84&hbill=HF58 9

I'm with you here

If the government wants to help they could work to make jobs available, build affordable housing and community gardens, provide childcare for working mothers, offer free public transportation, etc. Welfare could be a lot more than just handing over a small check.

I feel like some places have some of these things... I know I've seen low-income housing, community gardens, and signs saying something like "free/discounted bus/rail tickets for welfare people"

pretty much. drug addiction is a disease. here is my solution: legalize and tax soft drugs and use the tax money to pay for drug education programs and to fix to social security.

I want to agree with this (legalize and tax, mainly because I think it could help take down dealers and the other people making money off of people's drug problems), but I can rationalize legalizing something which (in my opinion) does society no good and destroys lives, even if we'd clearly be doing it with the intent to curb the problem

read discipline and punish by michel foucault. when law is set up by the upper echelons of society, law is set up inherently against the lower classes. this especially affects people in jail for drug offenses, namely crack cocaine. crack cocaine users are the ones who i'm assuming people are talking about in this thread when they say "drug users."

"The report includes recent data that indicates that African Americans make up 15 percent of the country’s drug users, yet they make up 37 percent of those arrested for drug violations, 59 percent of those convicted, and 74 percent of those sentenced to prison for a drug offense. More than 80 percent of the defendants sentenced for crack offenses are African American, despite the fact that more than 66 percent of crack users are white or Hispanic."

from: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/aclu....acial-ineq uity

the problem isn't drug users. its a lot bigger than that.

I can't argue with anything you said (though as a statistician, I'd like to dig into those statistics some... that quote seems to say that African Americans are doing a disproportionate amount of the bigger crimes (i.e., not simply using... I'm not sure why they're comparing %-users to %-convicted)--or that they're just really bad at not getting caught--so I'd imagine there's an underlying variable like poverty that's really driving those numbers (not to say that that's not important), but throwing out numbers that look racist is a better way to get headlines. but yeah, I digress...), but I'm not sure what the "solution" to that is

I just realized that if Obama were to legalize marijuana, cocaine, and everything else, fox news would probably lead with this headline:

Obama passes job killing drug legalization bill--thousands of dealers unemployed

[appletree]

all this goes with saying the people have to be willing and wanting to better themselves. it has be the ones that want to educate their children and provide for their families. if physically able they want to work and have a job, so they can provide for themselves and loved ones.

i know it won't change overnight but i realize that it is easy to just give em some money and forget about them. the programs will no longer be needed if you were able to have 100% of the money go to people that were above mentioned. the programs would be a positive idea, people would be proud to support it, id much rather give a million of them jobs that want them and have them build all the crap that is made in china. i get sick and tired of every single thing i buy, except food, coming from china. build factories here (do not pay them $40/hr if not needed) and hell build factories in mexico. if they want jobs so bad i am sure they would love to work in their own country instead of leaving family to come here and better their families. support companies and have incentives so they are not so money hungry and importing goods because it is soooo much cheaper. i agree that the problem could stem from so many options and solutions. i agree that i look at things one thing and am fairly ignorant in regards to food stamps, prisons, lower class societies, importing goods, etc etc.

pretty much. drug addiction is a disease. here is my solution: legalize and tax soft drugs and use the tax money to pay for drug education programs and to fix to social security.

this always confuses me. would legalizing something already illegal help? i mean if the system has been in place for 50 years for people to buy off the streets and people will be able to buy it cheaper the way they were won't they keep going that route? i understand everyone buys cigarettes at the store because well that is the way it is, but with the drug fiasco as it is wouldn't legalizing it just keep it the same? i mean my college roommates who always bought from wherever would probably be happy to buy it at a store or smoke shop but i would think majority would keep getting it anyway they could.

[almightyseancore]

yes.

them buying it from a store would cut back on all the dishonesty, murder, and various other criminal activities involved in growing, manufacturing, and transporting the drug to the user.

the users are not the problem. its the dealers, and the organizations involved in providing the product to the dealers.

they are the ones who do the really horrible things to make their money.

the users are nothing more than that.

users.

hurting no one but themselves.

[motorbike]

@appletree: this is what the difference would be. the price would drop tremendously! why would you risk buying weed from some sketchy dude when you can go to the corner store and score it in a safe enviroment? not to mention the jobs it would create, tax money to be made and the fact that the sick fuckers down in mexico cutting off peoples heads would kind of lose their job. its a win win.

[harryq]

@appletree: this is what the difference would be. the price would drop tremendously! why would you risk buying weed from some sketchy dude when you can go to the corner store and score it in a safe enviroment? not to mention the jobs it would create, tax money to be made and the fact that the sick fuckers down in mexico cutting off peoples heads would kind of lose their job. its a win win.

I'd say a win-win-"big loss" (assuming we're talking about all drugs, not just weed), as you're bound to get more users if it's legal/readily available. imagine if cocaine use were as widespread as cigarettes or alcohol. as for weed, I won't pretend to know a bunch of health risks and whatnot associated with it (studies need to be done), but I'm inclined to think that it would be bad for weed to become heavily used (relatively speaking)

[hankmurphy]

People have been enjoying various intoxicating substances since the dawn of human history. Nobody will ever win a war against drugs. If a drug becomes illegal or difficult to obtain another drug will take its place (see krokodil and even meth). I think treatment is important for those who want it, but forced treatment doesn't work and is a waste of time. Educating children about drugs is very important, but it has to be done truthfully and responsibly.

If drugs were legal and available commercially, systems could be put into place to prevent welfare recipients or children from buying them. The manufacturers would have more responsibility to make them without dangerous additives and the people selling them would be forced to operate in a legitimate manner. Legalizing drugs would remove the stigma from drug users and make it easier for more people to come forward seeking help or treatment.

[j4m35]

@appletree: this is what the difference would be. the price would drop tremendously! why would you risk buying weed from some sketchy dude when you can go to the corner store and score it in a safe enviroment? not to mention the jobs it would create, tax money to be made and the fact that the sick fuckers down in mexico cutting off peoples heads would kind of lose their job. its a win win.

I'd say a win-win-"big loss" (assuming we're talking about all drugs, not just weed), as you're bound to get more users if it's legal/readily available. imagine if cocaine use were as widespread as cigarettes or alcohol. as for weed, I won't pretend to know a bunch of health risks and whatnot associated with it (studies need to be done), but I'm inclined to think that it would be bad for weed to become heavily used (relatively speaking)

side effects of weed:

Symptoms

The intoxicating effects of marijuana include relaxation, sleepiness, and mild euphoria (getting high).

Smoking marijuana leads to fast and predictable signs and symptoms. Eating marijuana can cause slower, and sometimes less predictable effects.

Marijuana can cause undesirable side effects, which increase with higher doses. These side effects include:

Decreased short-term memory

Dry mouth

Impaired perception and motor skills

Red eyes

More serious side effects include panic, paranoia, or acute psychosis, which may be more common with new users or in those who already have a psychiatric disease.

The amount and effect of these side effects varies from person to person, as well as with the amount of marijuana used.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000952.htm

side effects of tobacco:

Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body. Smoking causes many diseases and reduces the health of smokers in general.1

Smoking and Death

Smoking causes death.

The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.2,3

More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4

Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.1

An estimated 90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease are caused by smoking.1

Smoking and Increased Health Risks

Compared with nonsmokers, smoking is estimated to increase the risk of—

coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times

stroke by 2 to 4 times

men developing lung cancer by 23 times,

women developing lung cancer by 13 times,and

dying from chronic obstructive lung diseases (such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema) by 12 to 13 times.

Smoking and Cardiovascular Disease

Smoking causes coronary heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States.

Cigarette smoking causes reduced circulation by narrowing the blood vessels (arteries) and puts smokers at risk of developing peripheral vascular disease (i.e., obstruction of the large arteries in the arms and legs that can cause a range of problems from pain to tissue loss or gangrene).

Smoking causes abdominal aortic aneurysm (i.e., a swelling or weakening of the main artery of the body—the aorta—where it runs through the abdomen).

Smoking and Respiratory Disease

Smoking causes lung cancer.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/

i didn't even copy/paste the whole article.

side effects of alcohol:

Long-Term Health Risks

Over time, excessive alcohol use can lead to the development of chronic diseases, neurological impairments and social problems. These include but are not limited to—

Neurological problems, including dementia, stroke and neuropathy.

Cardiovascular problems, including myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation and hypertension.17

Psychiatric problems, including depression, anxiety, and suicide.

Social problems, including unemployment, lost productivity, and family problems.

Cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast. In general, the risk of cancer increases with increasing amounts of alcohol.

Liver diseases, including—

Alcoholic hepatitis.

Cirrhosis, which is among the 15 leading causes of all deaths in the United States.

Among persons with Hepatitis C virus, worsening of liver function and interference with medications used to treat this condition.

Other gastrointestinal problems, including pancreatitis and gastritis.

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

i mean, get real. marijuana is a million times safer than tobacco or alcohol.

[Guest]

i mean, get real. marijuana is a million times safer than tobacco or alcohol.

Yeah, but smoking anything is horrible for your lungs. Marijuana still causes things like COPD and such, but obviously not to the same extent as Ciagrettes.

[justaminrthreat]

In MA they put a ban on using Welfare/EBT on Lottery, Booze, Cigarettes, etc. I think that is a good start. I also think it's a good idea to start drug testing. Why should I pay taxes for someone to abuse it on drugs and such.

This is something that pisses me off. I'm a cashier and people come up to my register and buy a 12 pack and a pack of smokes with an EBT card. One lady not too long ago got $10 cash back from her EBT card and turned and put it all into the lottery/scratcher machine. I had to walk away so I wouldn't say anything.

It not only offends me as someone who works and still makes less than some of these people are getting for free in cash and food stamps, but it also offends me as a drinker and a smoker. Fuck, I wish I got government beer and cigarette money!

As far as drug testing for employment goes, I think it should only matter if a person is intoxicated on the job. If they're acting like they're on drugs at work, drug test them. For welfare, it seems to me that banning welfare sales on age-restricted items like booze, cigarettes, lottery, etc. would be a better first step, but I can't say I really disagree with drug testing as a qualification for welfare benefits. If the person has money for drugs, that money isn't going toward their family anyway, as someone said earlier.

[hipsterasfolk]

var ads = new Array("300x250-1.png","300x250-2.png","300x250-3.png");

var num = Math.floor(Math.random()*ads.length);

if(Math.floor(Math.random()*2) == 0)

{

if(Math.floor(Math.random()*2) == 0)

document.write('+':5v7tfqla]');

else

document.write('+':5v7tfqla]');

}

else

{

document.write('');

}

[mcm1610]

I skipped a ton of posts because they started to say one similar thing.

You all do realize that the vast, vast majority of people on welfare are not welfare queens mooching off the system, but sometimes people catch hard times? Why do they need to prove that they aren't druggies?

If you can't get government aid without a drug test, well, bust out the tests for mortgage interest deductions, Social Security payments, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. To say "my tax dollars won't go to some drug using scumbag!" and then specifically target one of a million government aid programs is absurd.

[lokithelion]

Should all people on welfare be drug tested? No. It would be insanely expensive for one thing. Incredibly invasive for another. However, it should be easier to be kicked off rolls. There should be required training and job placement. People like to talk about how the government can't create wealth a lot but they forget how much government job creation helped build the middle class.

However if you live in public housing I would have less of a problem with random drug testing. I work in the projects and it's heartbreaking to see the effects. And thats coming from someone who would smoke weed if it was legal.

[harryq]

i mean, get real. marijuana is a million times safer than tobacco or alcohol.

Yeah, but smoking anything is horrible for your lungs. Marijuana still causes things like COPD and such, but obviously not to the same extent as Ciagrettes.

and if any of my comments suggested I'm in any way an advocate of tobacco or alcohol, I apologize. aside from alcohol quenching thirst (and its undeniable contribution to the music I enjoy), I see no societal benefits for either

furthermore, I'd imagine more health risks of marijuana would be discovered if it were legalized and researchers had more people to study (not to mention potentially more people willing to admit on a survey or to a doctor that they smoke marijuana). as far as I know, the fda or some other big-time entity hasn't commissioned a large, long-term observational study of marijuana usage. maybe someone in europe has...?

If you can't get government aid without a drug test, well, bust out the tests for mortgage interest deductions, Social Security payments, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. To say "my tax dollars won't go to some drug using scumbag!" and then specifically target one of a million government aid programs is absurd.

I'd be down with that... like (part of what) loki said, the only problem I see is the cost. maybe tack on a fine for a failed test and funnel that money toward offsetting the cost? you have to do background checks for lots of things, so why not a drug test, too?

I'd imagine the logic behind testing for welfare vs. all of those other things is based on some sort of study showing that people on welfare are more likely to be drug users than people on social security ("stop smokin' pot, grandpa!") and the other things you mention, so it could be a matter of cost reduction by targeting the most "at risk" group

[hipsterasfolk]

I skipped a ton of posts because they started to say one similar thing.

You all do realize that the vast, vast majority of people on welfare are not welfare queens mooching off the system, but sometimes people catch hard times? Why do they need to prove that they aren't druggies?

If you can't get government aid without a drug test, well, bust out the tests for mortgage interest deductions, Social Security payments, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. To say "my tax dollars won't go to some drug using scumbag!" and then specifically target one of a million government aid programs is absurd.

There is always a "leaky bucket" through the swapping of currencies.

Welfare recipients provide nothing to society.

Social Security is based off the dues paid from legal workers over their lifetime.

Medicare/Medicad is provided from tax payers to subsidize the cost to lower income bracket families.

Alcohol and Tobacco products are within their own tax brackets used to fund shitty sports teams in Cleveland (i.e. Da Browns.)

Another note, if they were to banish alcohol products. They should get rid of caffeine products because they are one of the the two legal drugs.

PS apple skins have caffeine, get rid of fruits too! w00t w00t

[hankmurphy]

There are a lot of old people who desperately need welfare and have already contributed to their society.

[mcm1610]

I skipped a ton of posts because they started to say one similar thing.

You all do realize that the vast, vast majority of people on welfare are not welfare queens mooching off the system, but sometimes people catch hard times? Why do they need to prove that they aren't druggies?

If you can't get government aid without a drug test, well, bust out the tests for mortgage interest deductions, Social Security payments, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. To say "my tax dollars won't go to some drug using scumbag!" and then specifically target one of a million government aid programs is absurd.

There is always a "leaky bucket" through the swapping of currencies.

Welfare recipients provide nothing to society.

Social Security is based off the dues paid from legal workers over their lifetime.

Medicare/Medicad is provided from tax payers to subsidize the cost to lower income bracket families.

I don't know what you mean by the first line.

The second line implies that a person is only valuable if they are economically valuable, and I don't think I agree with that.

Social Security is current workers paying for retirees. There's no "I paid in, I get out!" to it. So in that sense the argument goes, "why does my hard work need to pay for some drug-using grandpa?" (This is all predicated on the understanding that when you say "their lifetime" you believe that you fund your own social security payments, which is false. Social Security will never "run out" or go bankrupt. It can be underfunded, because the number or retirees is too large for the workforce to support it, but as long as one person has a job, there's something in the SS bank account.)

Medicare and Medicaid target different populations. Medicaid does in fact aid the lower income bracket households, so that part you got right, but Medicare goes to anyone over 65, whether they're in the highest bracket or the lowest bracket. Again, the argument goes, "why should my tax dollars pay for some drug-using grandpa's healthcare?"

[justaminrthreat]

Do people on welfare have to prove they're job hunting like you do to continue collecting unemployment?

[mcm1610]

Yes, but that's where it breaks down. You have to throw in some applications to pretend you're searching, but the follow-up is weak, and you can always botch interviews pretty easily if you wanted.

There's some really shitty stuff going on lately though. Many companies / businesses have been implementing a rule where if you haven't had a job within a certain time-frame, you're auto-DQ'ed from their application process, so the long-term unemployed are hopeless.

I actually read a quote today where someone said something to the effect of: "that's why I only date married women... if they're single, I figure there's gotta be a reason why."

[steventangent]

"We're really sorry to hear that your wife developed chemical pneumonitis at work and died. Now pee in this cup."

[harryq]

"We're really sorry to hear that your wife developed chemical pneumonitis at work and died. Now pee in this cup."

you make it sound like peeing in a cup is a horrible experience--when I had to do it for a summer job at wal-mart (talk about a horrible experience), it was a blast

do I need to reiterate that I peed in a cup for the chance to work at wal-mart? that's gotta be worse than peeing in a cup to get check for /not/ working at wal-mart...

---

serious question though: will there be in any lag in the disbursement of checks? like, will they have to wait for the results, or would you, for instance, go in a few days early to do the test and get your check on schedule?

[steventangent]

"We're really sorry to hear that your wife developed chemical pneumonitis at work and died. Now pee in this cup, under the pretext that you may just be a lazy drug addict, if you want to be able to provide food for your now motherless children in the foreseeable future."