Pee in a cup for benefits.

[southsider2k5]

Right, that's at least along the same line (not sure about tax returns?). I don't support any and all regulations, and I don't support criminalized drug laws, and I really don't support unnecessary and expensive drug testing for government benefits. But I don't ideologically oppose paternal or paternal-like government actions, while conservatives generally do, or at least claim to. If you're going to make an argument in favor of such strong paternal actions, you can't turn around and criticize other programs or laws based on their paternal nature.

 

The difference here is that we are talking about this is a benefit setting. If you want something, you have to prove something back. Don't want to be tested, don't apply for benefits. That is less paternal than most of what we don't have any choice over. Then again I also really believe these types of offerings need to be shrunk majorly anyway, so in a weird sort of way those two things go hand in hand.

[southsider2k5]

Drugs are already criminalized, but that hasn't stopped a damn thing.

 

I lost my uncle this week due to alcoholism. I look forward to your support for prohibition and routine breathalyzer testing.

 

That argument is terrible. People break laws all of the time. Stealing money from investors is already a crime, I guess that means we don't need Dodd-Frank, right?

[Balta1701]

The difference here is that we are talking about this is a benefit setting. If you want something, you have to prove something back. Don't want to be tested, don't apply for benefits. That is less paternal than most of what we don't have any choice over. Then again I also really believe these types of offerings need to be shrunk majorly anyway, so in a weird sort of way those two things go hand in hand.

So...the response to a positive test is to deny various tax credits/exemptions to people who test positive?

 

Why do I immediately feel like this program would do a lot more damage to society than putting drug addicts in jail?

[Texsox]

Do you feel the same way about the workplace urine tests that people with jobs that support such benefits are often required to take?

 

I am against them without some reason, in law enforcement we would say probable cause. The situation I can remember was a company I was working for was acquired by another. The new company had a program of random tests. In the first wave of tests was out CFO. The man was 68 years old, only working to help ease the transition or he would have retired six months earlier. In thirty-five years working for the company he had taken three sick days, all when he had a hernia repaired. Almost never late, took his vacation, was an all around great employee. Why would you insult him by checking him? He went into the bathroom, peed in the cup, went back to his desk and wrote a letter of resignation. Best part, he never cleaned out his office, by the next day the new company was paying him 2X his old salary as a consultant. That was the most expensive drug test that company ever gave.

 

I think there has to be some job performance issue that triggers the search of your body. Absences, lateness, mistakes, something.

[Texsox]

I bet we save a factor of 10 times that.

 

$126 billion in savings? Tell me that is hyperbole.

[Balta1701]

$126 billion in savings? Tell me that is hyperbole.

If you could cut the prison population 20% that would do it. If you could massively cut police and somewhat cut healthcare costs that would do it too.

[The Sir]

I don't have any interest in subsidizing unproductive members of society so that they can poison their bodies and continue being unproductive. They don't have to go to prison. They just don't get any benefits. Use that garbage if you'd like, but do it on your own dime. And you try to make that argument about being for the children. Do you really think drug addicted welfare recipients are incredibly worried about using their benefits to provide for those kids? If you want to protect these children, have CPS scoop them up (and yeah, this opens a whole other nanny-state can of worms that I'm not sure I'm OK with). But it's foolish to believe that giving money to these deadbeat parents will ever, at least in any substantial form, reach the hands and mouths of their children.

[Texsox]

I'm curious, how often are you drug tested?

[The Sir]

I'm curious, how often are you drug tested?

 

I think we're now doing 10% of the company (~150 personnel) every Monday and 100% once every month. I'm not sure though, because I don't really keep track.

[Texsox]

I think we're now doing 10% of the company (~150 personnel) every Monday and 100% once every month. I'm not sure though, because I don't really keep track.

Damn, they spend a lot on drug testing.

[The Sir]

Damn, they spend a lot on drug testing.

 

It's for a worthwhile cause. People who use drugs shouldn't be Soldiers. We need to filter them out and eliminate them from our ranks.

[Texsox]

It's for a worthwhile cause. People who use drugs shouldn't be Soldiers. We need to filter them out and eliminate them from our ranks.

 

Agreed, I just didn't think the problem was so severe that it required 100% monthly testing.

[CanOfCorn]

I don't have any interest in subsidizing unproductive members of society so that they can poison their bodies and continue being unproductive. They don't have to go to prison. They just don't get any benefits. Use that garbage if you'd like, but do it on your own dime. And you try to make that argument about being for the children. Do you really think drug addicted welfare recipients are incredibly worried about using their benefits to provide for those kids? If you want to protect these children, have CPS scoop them up (and yeah, this opens a whole other nanny-state can of worms that I'm not sure I'm OK with). But it's foolish to believe that giving money to these deadbeat parents will ever, at least in any substantial form, reach the hands and mouths of their children.

 

Unfortunately...they won't have that dime, which will lead to other crime, such as theft, burglary, robbing banks, stealing cars, etc.

 

Drug testing isn't the answer. Positive or negative, the taxpayers won't win.

[The Sir]

Unfortunately...they won't have that dime, which will lead to other crime, such as theft, burglary, robbing banks, stealing cars, etc.

 

A harsh reaction to a bad sort of behavior doesn't become unjust simply because the subject (who has free will, mind you) decides he must now resort to an even worse sort of behavior. If you can't use drugs on your own dime, don't use 'em at all. If you commit armed robbery to fund your habit, then you go to prison. It's that simple.

[Texsox]

It's for a worthwhile cause. People who use drugs shouldn't be Soldiers. We need to filter them out and eliminate them from our ranks.

 

I guess it would be difficult to determine who may be abusing and who isn't, and then just test those that you are unsure of.

[CanOfCorn]

A harsh reaction to a bad sort of behavior doesn't become unjust simply because the subject (who has free will, mind you) decides he must now resort to an even worse sort of behavior. If you can't use drugs on your own dime, don't use 'em at all. If you commit armed robbery to fund your habit, then you go to prison. It's that simple.

 

If that person is an addict...it's not that easy to just not use them.

[The Sir]

If that person is an addict...it's not that easy to just not use them.

 

And whose fault is that? Not mine nor yours.