Kansas House adopts drug testing

[EXman]

Originally posted by: marincounty
So it's fine if you are an alcoholic cigarette smoker, it's the illegal drugs that are bad?
Just legalize drugs, problem solved.

Doesn't Kansas have a bunch of farmers receiving govt aid? They all need to be drug tested-everyone in the family.

legalizing drugs is a lazy quitters way of doing things. Look at San Fransisco and even Switzerland the bums are out of control. Actually I think the Swiss wisened up and put a stop to their BS drug laws. They were tired of junkie europeans flocking there to get high and live on the street.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'd have a big problem if they were requiring testing for just anyone, but I don't see anything wrong with them saying "hey, you want a handout from the taxpayer, we are willing to do that. In return, we ask that if we give you handouts, that we get some assurance that those handouts are not going towards illegal drugs". Seems reasonable to me.

The libertarian in me doesn't like the government control aspect, but then again, if you're asking for someone else (the state) to pick up your tab, then you have to deal with the strings attached.

 

[BoberFett]

It's funny to see the same people who support the idea of mandatory public service for those receiving school benefits but are against this and vice versa.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
It's funny to see the same people who support the idea of mandatory public service for those receiving school benefits but are against this and vice versa.

"School benefits" are not "handouts" or welfare. I pay my taxes, at every level from the local to the federal. Part of what I get for paying taxes is government services, including public schooling. I'm not asking for a handout or for someone to pay my way, I'm simply using the services I pay for.

I don't think anyone should be forced into public service to get the benefits they pay for already. Welfare is a different animal altogether -- you're asking for everyone else to pay your way. That's fine, but then there are strings attached.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: sandorski
"Good" from Kansas? Knew this was parody even before opening the thread.

This is insidious BS, the rot from within. Government mandated stripping of Rights based upon Class.

It has nothing to do with class and everything to do with standing in line waiting for taxpayer money.
Why is it ok for someone to not work and get government assistance without a drug test, but if I work and provide for myself my employer can drug test me??

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Why is it ok for someone to not work and get government assistance without a drug test, but if I work and provide for myself my employer can drug test me??

That is an interesting point, e.g. Insurance Co. can require it, in order to protect their interests, why can't the tax payers do the same thing? If it is because it is the gov. and not a private entity, and it is a slippery slope issue, is it time to call for the privatization of welfare programs?

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: marincounty
So it's fine if you are an alcoholic cigarette smoker, it's the illegal drugs that are bad?
Just legalize drugs, problem solved.

Doesn't Kansas have a bunch of farmers receiving govt aid? They all need to be drug tested-everyone in the family.

legalizing drugs is a lazy quitters way of doing things. Look at San Fransisco and even Switzerland the bums are out of control. Actually I think the Swiss wisened up and put a stop to their BS drug laws. They were tired of junkie europeans flocking there to get high and live on the street.

Making up things is fun!

 

[Dragula22]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: marincounty
So it's fine if you are an alcoholic cigarette smoker, it's the illegal drugs that are bad?
Just legalize drugs, problem solved.

Doesn't Kansas have a bunch of farmers receiving govt aid? They all need to be drug tested-everyone in the family.

legalizing drugs is a lazy quitters way of doing things. Look at San Fransisco and even Switzerland the bums are out of control. Actually I think the Swiss wisened up and put a stop to their BS drug laws. They were tired of junkie europeans flocking there to get high and live on the street.

Making up things is fun!

lol for reals.

 

[winnar111]

Zero said some hoopla and nonsense about spending taxpayer dollars 'wisely', and ending programs that do not work.

I guess he wasn't referring to handing money to deadbeats. That works out great. Kind of like those people spending their Katrina debit card at the bar.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: marincounty
So it's fine if you are an alcoholic cigarette smoker, it's the illegal drugs that are bad?
Just legalize drugs, problem solved.

Doesn't Kansas have a bunch of farmers receiving govt aid? They all need to be drug tested-everyone in the family.

legalizing drugs is a lazy quitters way of doing things. Look at San Fransisco and even Switzerland the bums are out of control. Actually I think the Swiss wisened up and put a stop to their BS drug laws. They were tired of junkie europeans flocking there to get high and live on the street.

Making up things is fun!

A lot of made up things right here.

C. Switzerland

Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.66 Unsurprisingly, in February of 1992 Switzerland ended this experiment with decriminalization after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs and consequences.67 Specifically, the number of addicts residing at the park (called Platzspitz) jumped from a few hundred in 1987 to over 20,000, by early 1992.68 Approximately 20% of these addicts were foreigners who came to Zurich to take advantage of the city's lax drug laws.69 In deciding to close the park, city officials cited the increased incidence of crime and prostitution--as Andres Oehler, a municipal spokesperson stated, "it was felt that the situation had got out of control in every sense."70

 

[StageLeft]

Interesting, I think it would be great to see how this works. I predict the state saving a ton of money as these public assistant folk come back positive in droves.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: sandorski
"Good" from Kansas? Knew this was parody even before opening the thread.

This is insidious BS, the rot from within. Government mandated stripping of Rights based upon Class.

What rights are being stripped??

You want to do illegal drugs, fine, just don't expect the state to provide you with money to support your lousy life style.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Vic
Why stop at people who get public assistance? Why not regularly test every kid who goes to public schools? Or every person with a license to drive on public roads? Or every person who benefits from public law enforcement?

If you think there's a difference, you're wrong. All these deadbeats feeding at the public trough! And the worst ones are the hypocrites who think they don't.

uh, no.

Please elaborate.

Keep in mind though, this isn't the only way in which this drug testing idea is morally wrong. Even if you manage to prove some kind of ethical difference in the different uses of public funds and resources, you're still establishing a litmus test for injustice and inequality in that it would all right for people who use govt in one to be free, but those who use it in another can be subject to all sorts of constitutional violations. Pretty much textbook fascism.

Couldn't one make the argument that social welfare programs are morally wrong too??

After all the government is forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to another.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski
"Good" from Kansas? Knew this was parody even before opening the thread.

This is insidious BS, the rot from within. Government mandated stripping of Rights based upon Class.

What rights are being stripped??

You want to do illegal drugs, fine, just don't expect the state to provide you with money to support your lousy life style.

It's an invasion of privacy and you're also being considered guilty until being proven innocent.

This would open the door to testing of anyone getting a government check.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski
"Good" from Kansas? Knew this was parody even before opening the thread.

This is insidious BS, the rot from within. Government mandated stripping of Rights based upon Class.

What rights are being stripped??

You want to do illegal drugs, fine, just don't expect the state to provide you with money to support your lousy life style.

It's an invasion of privacy and you're also being considered guilty until being proven innocent.

This would open the door to testing of anyone getting a government check.

What do you mean anyone getting a government check? People who work for the government get drug tested.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski
"Good" from Kansas? Knew this was parody even before opening the thread.

This is insidious BS, the rot from within. Government mandated stripping of Rights based upon Class.

What rights are being stripped??

You want to do illegal drugs, fine, just don't expect the state to provide you with money to support your lousy life style.

It's an invasion of privacy and you're also being considered guilty until being proven innocent.

This would open the door to testing of anyone getting a government check.

If you come to me asking for a hand out do I not have a right to dictate the terms??
If you don't like the terms then don't take the money.

 

[Balt]

No one thinks it's a good idea for the public to fund drug habits, but if you completely cut people off people's assistance rather than requiring some kind of rehabilitation program probably all you are going to get is an increase in crime. They are going to feed themselves somehow.

Also what are you going to do with their kids? Take them from the parents?

All in all you are likely going to increase the costs to the state with something like this if you want to prevent the side effects. If it actually helps people, that's fine. Eventually it might even lower costs if you can get people cleaned up and becoming productive members of society. If people are under the impression that this is going to save them money and cost them nothing in the short term, however, I think they are deluding themselves.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think all drugs should be tested.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sounds like a familiar argument. If you take state or federal money, there are strings attached. Bank bailout, or personal bailout.

You have to accept the rules of those whose money you take.

If they decide to drug test you, or change your contract, or adjust your pay, oh well...

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski
"Good" from Kansas? Knew this was parody even before opening the thread.

This is insidious BS, the rot from within. Government mandated stripping of Rights based upon Class.

What rights are being stripped??

You want to do illegal drugs, fine, just don't expect the state to provide you with money to support your lousy life style.

It's an invasion of privacy and you're also being considered guilty until being proven innocent.

This would open the door to testing of anyone getting a government check.

If you come to me asking for a hand out do I not have a right to dictate the terms??
If you don't like the terms then don't take the money.

Exactly. Funny that the same people would probably be arguing this exact point if we were discussing financial institution bailouts.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Balt
No one thinks it's a good idea for the public to fund drug habits, but if you completely cut people off people's assistance rather than requiring some kind of rehabilitation program probably all you are going to get is an increase in crime. They are going to feed themselves somehow.

Also what are you going to do with their kids? Take them from the parents?

All in all you are likely going to increase the costs to the state with something like this if you want to prevent the side effects. If it actually helps people, that's fine. Eventually it might even lower costs if you can get people cleaned up and becoming productive members of society. If people are under the impression that this is going to save them money and cost them nothing in the short term, however, I think they are deluding themselves.

Anything is possible. But did we see a large increase in crime after Clinton passed his welfare reform that shed thousands of people from the rolls?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski
"Good" from Kansas? Knew this was parody even before opening the thread.

This is insidious BS, the rot from within. Government mandated stripping of Rights based upon Class.

What rights are being stripped??

You want to do illegal drugs, fine, just don't expect the state to provide you with money to support your lousy life style.

It's an invasion of privacy and you're also being considered guilty until being proven innocent.

This would open the door to testing of anyone getting a government check.

If you come to me asking for a hand out do I not have a right to dictate the terms??
If you don't like the terms then don't take the money.

Exactly. Funny that the same people would probably be arguing this exact point if we were discussing financial institution bailouts.

We totally have the right to dictate the terms, the question is what we do if we bust the person for using drugs. Do you kick his/her children off the state assistance program too? (as the majority of people on those types of programs tend to be kids) Is that what we want to be doing?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

But but but, what about the children? Seriously? You think it's better to leave the children in the home of a drug addict? Really? C'mon now, lets use a little sense here. Exactly what benefit does society gain from a child growing up in an environment of government dependence to support a drug habit? You know what you get from this right? The next generation of government dependent with a drug abuse problem. Children learn the most from their environment so maybe it's best if we don't leave them in a toxic one.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Balt
No one thinks it's a good idea for the public to fund drug habits, but if you completely cut people off people's assistance rather than requiring some kind of rehabilitation program probably all you are going to get is an increase in crime. They are going to feed themselves somehow.

Also what are you going to do with their kids? Take them from the parents?

All in all you are likely going to increase the costs to the state with something like this if you want to prevent the side effects. If it actually helps people, that's fine. Eventually it might even lower costs if you can get people cleaned up and becoming productive members of society. If people are under the impression that this is going to save them money and cost them nothing in the short term, however, I think they are deluding themselves.

Anything is possible. But did we see a large increase in crime after Clinton passed his welfare reform that shed thousands of people from the rolls?

I don't know if it was ever studied, to be honest. You'd have to look at specific areas where welfare reform had its highest impact to be able to tell. On a national scale there would be too much noise.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Balt
No one thinks it's a good idea for the public to fund drug habits, but if you completely cut people off people's assistance rather than requiring some kind of rehabilitation program probably all you are going to get is an increase in crime. They are going to feed themselves somehow.

Also what are you going to do with their kids? Take them from the parents?

All in all you are likely going to increase the costs to the state with something like this if you want to prevent the side effects. If it actually helps people, that's fine. Eventually it might even lower costs if you can get people cleaned up and becoming productive members of society. If people are under the impression that this is going to save them money and cost them nothing in the short term, however, I think they are deluding themselves.

Anything is possible. But did we see a large increase in crime after Clinton passed his welfare reform that shed thousands of people from the rolls?

I don't know if it was ever studied, to be honest. You'd have to look at specific areas where welfare reform had its highest impact to be able to tell. On a national scale there would be too much noise.

I am pretty sure we saw a drop in poverty rates which means they went out and got jobs.