Kansas House adopts drug testing

[Balt]

Originally posted by: 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.

Poverty rates are related to a lot more variables than just welfare, though. The drop in poverty rates could largely have been a response to the overall economy of the time. Without someone running the stats there's not going to be a way to say definitively one way or the other.

 

[techs]

Next step is clearly ongoing drug testing of everyone who has a drivers license.
Drug testing of everyone using a Kansas public park, after all they may pass out and start a fire.
Drug testing of all students who receive a pubicly funded education.
Drug testing of everyone who gets a public farming subsidy etc.

Yep. Clearly this has nothing to do with anything except trying to harass poor people in Kansas.
At this point Kansas has passed so many wacky laws that I would venture the list of people and companies that will never move to Kansas is incredibly long.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs
Next step is clearly ongoing drug testing of everyone who has a drivers license.
Drug testing of everyone using a Kansas public park, after all they may pass out and start a fire.
Drug testing of all students who receive a pubicly funded education.
Drug testing of everyone who gets a public farming subsidy etc.

Yep. Clearly this has nothing to do with anything except trying to harass poor people in Kansas.
At this point Kansas has passed so many wacky laws that I would venture the list of people and companies that will never move to Kansas is incredibly long.

Nice slippery slope fallacy.

This is clearly targeted at people recieving state aid for doing jack shit in society. When you sit on your ass smoking dope all day collecting benefits the public has a right to demand you change your behavior. Why is it ok for me to be required to take a piss test to be a productive member of society but not ok to be required to if I collect public benefits and be a drain?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs
Next step is clearly ongoing drug testing of everyone who has a drivers license.
Drug testing of everyone using a Kansas public park, after all they may pass out and start a fire.
Drug testing of all students who receive a pubicly funded education.
Drug testing of everyone who gets a public farming subsidy etc.

Yep. Clearly this has nothing to do with anything except trying to harass poor people in Kansas.
At this point Kansas has passed so many wacky laws that I would venture the list of people and companies that will never move to Kansas is incredibly long.

Nice slippery slope fallacy.

This is clearly targeted at people recieving state aid for doing jack shit in society. When you sit on your ass smoking dope all day collecting benefits the public has a right to demand you change your behavior. Why is it ok for me to be required to take a piss test to be a productive member of society but not ok to be required to if I collect public benefits and be a drain?

This is clearly targeted at people who think like you do.
In fact, it is your predujice as to who and which people are recieving welfare which justifies this law to you.
Personally, I think many, many drivers are driving drunk and don't get caught. I don't drink. I want all drivers randomly pulled over and randomly tested for drugs and alcohol and I want people tested at least 4 times a year. One fail and you lose your license.

 

[nobodyknows]

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.

They aren't asking you, they're asking the goverment.

As such it's up to the legislators/people to decide. I don't totally oppose it, but at the same time I think if this can be done then let's do it to the the same legislators, the govenor, hell any goverment employee. They are getting government funds too.

 

[marincounty]

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.

The point is that smoking or drinking excessively are just as damaging as using drugs, and the only difference is one is legal and the other is not. Why penalize one behaviour and not the other?

And this is just picking on the poorest of people. Screw KansASS.

Speaking of welfare, it's time we ended all of the farm subsidy programs for rich Kansans.:|

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Balt

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.

A drop in poverty is to be expected during a decade long period of broad based economic growth. To attribute that to people on welfare 'getting jobs' is quite a leap.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs
Next step is clearly ongoing drug testing of everyone who has a drivers license.
Drug testing of everyone using a Kansas public park, after all they may pass out and start a fire.
Drug testing of all students who receive a pubicly funded education.
Drug testing of everyone who gets a public farming subsidy etc.

Yep. Clearly this has nothing to do with anything except trying to harass poor people in Kansas.
At this point Kansas has passed so many wacky laws that I would venture the list of people and companies that will never move to Kansas is incredibly long.

Nice slippery slope fallacy.

This is clearly targeted at people recieving state aid for doing jack shit in society. When you sit on your ass smoking dope all day collecting benefits the public has a right to demand you change your behavior. Why is it ok for me to be required to take a piss test to be a productive member of society but not ok to be required to if I collect public benefits and be a drain?

This is clearly targeted at people who think like you do.
In fact, it is your predujice as to who and which people are recieving welfare which justifies this law to you.
Personally, I think many, many drivers are driving drunk and don't get caught. I don't drink. I want all drivers randomly pulled over and randomly tested for drugs and alcohol and I want people tested at least 4 times a year. One fail and you lose your license.

Now hold on there techs. I'm a pretty flaming liberal. I support government assistance and needs-based programs because I think the role of government should be to ensure the health and well-being of its citizens. I'm about as far from Genx as you can get on the political spectrum. And I still think that some sort of drug testing for welfare recipients is not a terrible idea. As I mentioned earlier, I do think that the privacy implications are dangerous. But we have to weight that against the public interest in not financing people's drug habits with government money.

I know several people who have been on welfare in my time. Growing up, one of my best friend's mother was on welfare, and she smoked a large amount of pot. In the last few years, several of my friends have qualified for various forms of need-based assistance, and invariably they smoke pot or use cocaine. I actually got into a shouting match with a friend when he used his Oregon Trail card to buy groceries, his paycheck to buy alcohol, cigarettes, pot and cocaine, and had the nerve to ask me for a loan to help him cover rent.

I've always wanted to believe that people on welfare were down on their luck, trying their damndest to scrape by on what they were able to cobble together. But the more examples I see of welfare, the more I see examples of shocking abuse of the public trust, using that money to help finance chemical addictions rather than whatever it is expected to be put towards. That saddens me. I don't want to think that the conservative stereotype of the welfare moms and junkies is correct. But my own experience with welfare recipients that I have known just confirms a truth I don't want to believe; everyone is trying to game the system. We can point the fingers at the Wall Street fatcats who fucked our economy to death trying to game the system. But is it really any different for the person using food stamps to buy Cheetos cause that's his favorite snack while he's high? People game the system at all levels and we need to do whatever we can to stop those abuses. I don't want to hear any more stories about Octomom getting pregnant so she can keep getting welfare checks. I don't want my friend to get government assistance if he's high as a fucking kite all the time. And I really, really don't want to agree with conservatives. But I have to say, I think this could actually be a good thing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs
Next step is clearly ongoing drug testing of everyone who has a drivers license.
Drug testing of everyone using a Kansas public park, after all they may pass out and start a fire.
Drug testing of all students who receive a pubicly funded education.
Drug testing of everyone who gets a public farming subsidy etc.

Yep. Clearly this has nothing to do with anything except trying to harass poor people in Kansas.
At this point Kansas has passed so many wacky laws that I would venture the list of people and companies that will never move to Kansas is incredibly long.

Nice slippery slope fallacy.

This is clearly targeted at people recieving state aid for doing jack shit in society. When you sit on your ass smoking dope all day collecting benefits the public has a right to demand you change your behavior. Why is it ok for me to be required to take a piss test to be a productive member of society but not ok to be required to if I collect public benefits and be a drain?

This is clearly targeted at people who think like you do.
In fact, it is your predujice as to who and which people are recieving welfare which justifies this law to you.
Personally, I think many, many drivers are driving drunk and don't get caught. I don't drink. I want all drivers randomly pulled over and randomly tested for drugs and alcohol and I want people tested at least 4 times a year. One fail and you lose your license.

You are correct, I do have a prejudice to people collecting welfare benefits being on drugs. Get off the drugs and feel free to collect those benefits.

And there are many states that have random checkpoints so your wish has already been granted.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs
Next step is clearly ongoing drug testing of everyone who has a drivers license.
Drug testing of everyone using a Kansas public park, after all they may pass out and start a fire.
Drug testing of all students who receive a pubicly funded education.
Drug testing of everyone who gets a public farming subsidy etc.

Yep. Clearly this has nothing to do with anything except trying to harass poor people in Kansas.
At this point Kansas has passed so many wacky laws that I would venture the list of people and companies that will never move to Kansas is incredibly long.

Nice slippery slope fallacy.

This is clearly targeted at people recieving state aid for doing jack shit in society. When you sit on your ass smoking dope all day collecting benefits the public has a right to demand you change your behavior. Why is it ok for me to be required to take a piss test to be a productive member of society but not ok to be required to if I collect public benefits and be a drain?

This is clearly targeted at people who think like you do.
In fact, it is your predujice as to who and which people are recieving welfare which justifies this law to you.
Personally, I think many, many drivers are driving drunk and don't get caught. I don't drink. I want all drivers randomly pulled over and randomly tested for drugs and alcohol and I want people tested at least 4 times a year. One fail and you lose your license.

You are correct, I do have a prejudice to people collecting welfare benefits being on drugs. Get off the drugs and feel free to collect those benefits.

And there are many states that have random checkpoints so your wish has already been granted.

Nope. I want everyone tested. And while we are at it anyone who gets any government aid for college.

See where your slippery slope leads?

You really are just a plain out and out fascist, aren't you?

 

[SnarkRap]

Not a good idea.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Nope. I want everyone tested. And while we are at it anyone who gets any government aid for college.

See where your slippery slope leads?

You really are just a plain out and out fascist, aren't you?

This is your slippery slope fantasy bunkie, not mine. Nice try though.

 

[m1ldslide1]

?Shouldn?t you only be fearful if you?re using?? Kelley said.

No need to dissect this one - we should just go ahead and remove her from office and ship her off to a Jordanian prison for interrogation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Plus social welfare programs are little more than bribery to the poor to reduce crime and encourage consumption/business. They're little more morally wrong than taxation to pay for public roads, as your typical taxpayer benefits more from them than the recipients.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: 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

Getting owned by yourself because you are too lazy to look something up is PRICELESS!!

thanks for the link 1prophet!

thanks for playing CitizenKain...

 

[sandorski]

Big Government Democrats == Big Brother Republicans

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: seemingly random
The recipients of government assistance should also be required to get a tubal ligation or a vasectomy.

Seig heil!

:roll:

As outrageous as it sounds, I bet it's been seriously proposed by someone.

This topic seems like a cry of frustration from currently powerless republicans in search of someone to exert power over.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I agree drug testing should be done. But this current testing is BS. ALL drug testing should be done in away it shows drug usage threw years . DNA test of hair works for me . Lets stop the BS drug testing. If your going to do it do it right. 3 days cocaine is undetectable with todays system ... NOT good enough> Real drug test only. The right way. That includes all jobs screens also.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I agree drug testing should be done. But this current testing is BS. ALL drug testing should be done in away it shows drug usage threw years . DNA test of hair works for me . Lets stop the BS drug testing. If your going to do it do it right. 3 days cocaine is undetectable with todays system ... NOT good enough> Real drug test only. The right way. That includes all jobs screens also.

Will you be testing for alcohol as well? Hell, why not ibuprofen?

The logic behind the current system is that a real addict couldn't stay clean for 3 days. There's no need nor reason to penalize the recreational users. Just like there's no need to penalize someone who has a few drinks on the weekend. Despite the authoritarian Puritan propaganda, there is such a thing as responsible alcohol/drug use.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I agree drug testing should be done. But this current testing is BS. ALL drug testing should be done in away it shows drug usage threw years . DNA test of hair works for me . Lets stop the BS drug testing. If your going to do it do it right. 3 days cocaine is undetectable with todays system ... NOT good enough> Real drug test only. The right way. That includes all jobs screens also.

Will you be testing for alcohol as well? Hell, why not ibuprofen?

The logic behind the current system is that a real addict couldn't stay clean for 3 days. There's no need nor reason to penalize the recreational users. Just like there's no need to penalize someone who has a few drinks on the weekend. Despite the authoritarian Puritan propaganda, there is such a thing as responsible alcohol/drug use.

BS. Pot takes 30 days. Your saying better to do cocain than pot. Your whats wrong with this country.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I agree drug testing should be done. But this current testing is BS. ALL drug testing should be done in away it shows drug usage threw years . DNA test of hair works for me . Lets stop the BS drug testing. If your going to do it do it right. 3 days cocaine is undetectable with todays system ... NOT good enough> Real drug test only. The right way. That includes all jobs screens also.

Will you be testing for alcohol as well? Hell, why not ibuprofen?

The logic behind the current system is that a real addict couldn't stay clean for 3 days. There's no need nor reason to penalize the recreational users. Just like there's no need to penalize someone who has a few drinks on the weekend. Despite the authoritarian Puritan propaganda, there is such a thing as responsible alcohol/drug use.

BS. Pot takes 30 days. Your saying better to do cocain than pot. Your whats wrong with this country.

Uh... that's not at all what I said.

 

[Nemesis 1]

True . But your in around about way saying. If your doing to do a drug on weekends . Pot is bad choice Cocain a good choice. I think its criminal that people have to make that choice . You know they do . I know people who won't smoke pot but do a line faster than you can lay it. So by not making POT legeal. They force people who do drugs to choose Cocain over pot. This is a criminal act . By our government. Because of unfair testing.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You want a Real war on drugs. Than do real test that will show your real usage habits.

If they done this . You either do drugs or work your CHOICE.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
True . But your in around about way saying. If your doing to do a drug on weekends . Pot is bad choice Cocain a good choice. I think its criminal that people have to make that choice . You know they do . I know people who won't smoke pot but do a line faster than you can lay it. So by not making POT legeal. They force people who do drugs to choose Cocain over pot. This is a criminal act . By our government. Because of unfair testing.

All I was saying was that, for most jobs, the only thing the employer really cares about is that the employee be able to show up for work sober. Normal drug testing indicates the prospective employee has the ability to stop using long enough to be able to do that. Anything beyond that doesn't mean shit for businesses, it's just fodder for moral busybodies.

BTW, you write like someone impaired. Just FYI. Either English is not your first language or your thought processes aren't firing on all cylinders.

And just a footnote, the biggest irony of this thread is that social programs and drug prohibition are closely intertwined as means to keep the lower classes out of the workforce (and thus keep unemployment numbers artificially low). Welfare bribes people out of the workforce, drug laws take them out of it entirely (either through prison or criminal record), while both employ millions in govt jobs that would otherwise not exist.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Ns1
I'm pro-drugs, and I have no problem with this.

Taxpayer dollars should not be going towards other people getting fucked up.

Basically my feelings on the matter. If a person cannot even provide the most basic necessities (food, housing, etc.) for them and their family, I don't think they need to be wasting money on illegal drugs.

These are my feelings on it pretty much.