On Plans to drug test welfare recipients get momentum
Dwight. Not so simple. Federal and state laws are not one in the same. This is why legal growers and dispensaries in California and Colorado can still be raided by the federal government and D.E.A. if they choose to. Since welfare is a federal program, I'd wager even those with medical marijuana prescriptions would be caught in the crossfire and forced to choose between their medication and their benefits. Again, everyone could theoretically pass their tests even if they are using, and I will reiterate that the only drug with an l.d.50 of more than 2/3 days is marijuana. All other hard illicit drugs are out of your system on an average of 3 days or less. Cheap amd quickly administered tests wouldn't require anything more than binge drinking water 6-8 hours before the test and 24 hours of non cocaine/heroin/methamphetamine use. Feasibly all we are going to catch are the extremely addicted, the stupid, and those that have used marijuana as long as 3-4 weeks before the test is administered. This goes for those who took drags off a joint provided by a friend Two weeks prior on a Saturday night
Lol the last sentence meant to say thosenot backing this as a bad idea. I also apologize for typos.. I'm on a phone and my fingers are fat...I'm also feeling a bit lazy. Also apologies for back to back posts
Realsense.Sarcasm doesn't convey well I'm text.If its not there...care to elaborate how it makes total sense? Its just great that tye supporters of this have the smallest answers and obviously little to no thought put into the actual following through of what this is proposing. If I felt this could actually work, or even save money...or reap any kind of benefit outweighing the cost of this, I would back it. How about a logical stance; treat these benefits as we do unemployment (without infinite extensions of course). Or take this money and put it into a program that helps match people with and train for jobs they can handle. Its hard to believe 1) this could work as intended and 2) that this money can't be better spent makingpeoples lives better rathee than taking something away. After all these comments its obvious there's no voice strong enough to justify implementing this, while those calling this a bad idea can at least state and back their claims. The simple answers of those in favor are certainly not convincing or persuasive, to say the least.
And has no one even read my post from earlier today and realized that drug tests are just that-a test. I know plenty of ways people can cheat a test...be it high school, college, or peeing in a cup....what makes you think the tssting will yield accurate results or be reliable and, well, true.?
I stand by my myriad of questions(or new problems?)that I proposed stemming from this welfare "solution". Rickraff and the other supporters of this idea....what answers do YOU have? I'd love to hear an articulated explanation as to how this could possibly save us a single penny-even when you simply take the number of potential dollars saved, added to the amount spent to drug test everyone in the program a single time at a cost of 50$ a pieceThis would only cover the cost of the test itself.I'd bet the tests cost more than that so I feel 50$ is fair. I won't even bother to throw a ballpark figure out as to how much would be additionally spent on the hourly wage of employees paid to administer the test, file paperwork, follow up, and then allow or restrict welfare benefits. How much money do you think this will save if I even allow you a generous 10% reduction in current welfare recipients? I eagerly await your projection.
I think the issue is more about welfare, and less about drugs. Hey, Ive got an idea. I'll have 4 kids and live off the government/taxpayers. Believe it or not, it works 100% of the time.My biggest problem with government and laws is this;When do I get to have MY say? When do I get to VOTE on whether or not this should even go into effect? In my mind, the ideal society is run by society. Those that wish to vote would have the ability to do so on a federal,state and local level, nearly every other week. This includes things that have been voted on already, after a grace period(in case there are unseen or undesirable ramifications)Rather than sit here on a forum and complain about this issue, why can't WE VOTE ON IT? Wasn't that the whole idea when we established this country? When do WE get to VOTE on when/if/where we go to war, if we're the ones going? How long unemployment benefits are given for? Extensions for them? And what about healthcare? And who is to say you can't have differences? If you choose to, you can pay increased taxes, but get increased benefits with healthcare, better or longer unemployment should the need arise,and better public services(free bus passes, free parking on ramps, small things of that nature)The idea that I have to sit here in a "free country" while a bunch of pompous rich you know whats make all the rules I have to follow....well that just really sours my milk.If we go to war, WE should get a say in it. If we give aid to a country 15,000 miles away while we have homeless and uninsured at home, WE should get to VOTE ON THIS.
This is why I don't consider myself republican.I don't consider myself a democrat.I wouldn't even consider myself a liberal.Radical?Sure.
On A new focus: Police officers' roles changing
Wow, the tone of many of these comments are so cold, while the context of this story seems so warm. We're talking about getting getting kids things they normally couldn't get.The officers in our community doing their jobs well- and the adults have the audacity to turn the discussion into personal attacks. You should all(eligible cold-hearted adults here) be ashamed!
On a lighter note, hats off to J.P.D. and those who made this possible. Nice story, thanks! =)
And how much money,exactly, does it cost to employ people to conduct these tests, and how much is it per test? What's the frequency of these tests?How long of a ban on welfare benefits will it have? A blanket effect? Different times for different drugs? Are they going to try and use the outcomes of the tests to press charges or launch investigations? Will positive tests be enough to get Social Services involved? And if so, how much more money will that cost? This seems to make more problems than solutions....
Not saying that this observation in necessarily legit or relevant...but for those who can't afford a few hundred dollars a month for medications, is it a crime that they substitute it with marijuana? This seems more like a "watch the birdie in the sky" while we do things on the ground. The lost cause of the drug war is looking in every nook and cranny now aren't they?I'm not sure how I feel about this in general.I dislike the idea of my money going to someone that sits on their butt, and disliked more is that money being spent on drugs. But this seems like the start of trying to gain momentum for just trying to drug test everyone for anything. How about putting some more money towards insurance for people that are working and paying taxes so people that dont work can maintain just that. As someone who works full time without benefits and supports two children(with a fiance,mind you), I am a little ticked off that there's money everywhere for people without jobs, yet if I get sick I refrain from going to the doctor unless im passing out or on my deathbed. It sickens me. What about the working class with no healthcare? Maybe you should try and fix that before you start testing everyone.
Food for thought;The only widely used drug that will show up on a drug test past roughly 3 days is marijuana. It is fat soluble. Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin,Methamphetamine...these are all water soluble and are generally out of your system in 2-3 days.Also, what kind of tests are we talking? The cheap 50$ litmus tests(think a water PH test strip) are notorious for false negatives, and the ability to cheat them. And are these tests monitored? Anyone know how easy it is to pass a drug test? As easy as taping a hotel shampoo bottle full of urine, or food colored water to your leg with a hand warmer. for about 3$ you can pass a majority of tests. There is no realistic way this will get the benefit they desire. It's just a foot in the door, and a way to slowly get mandatory drug testing and privacy invasion into other facets of our lives. Don't we have better things to worry about/spend money on? LIKE GETTING PEOPLE HEALTHCARE?!
On Unions’ recall race snub surprised Cullen
You want to fix things? Get rid of mandatory WEAC. Done. Next topic
Hats off for Tim Cullen,I agree with and respect his decision. There have long been stories of Union leaders acting more like the people they're supposed to be opposing than the people they're representing. Standing up and saying that he isn't ready to force the issue just because of some bad blood and out of what really is becoming spite is A+ in my book.
Page 1 of 62
» More most emailed stories
» More popular discussions
Staff Directory |
Contact Us |
Legal Notices |
Subscriber Services |
Site Help |
Site Map |
Latest News |
Public Record |
Special Sections |
Political Cartoons |
Photo Galleries |
Slide Shows |
Blog List |
Latest Blog Entries
Customer Care |
Newspaper In Education |
Reader Rewards |