Members SnowViking Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 I'm also guessing that while drug-testing seems like a good idea to the narrow-minded, in terms of where their taxes are going, the US constitution will prevent it from ever becoming a reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thom Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 I'm done for today, hope I haven't caused too much offtopic butt hurtage or drama or whatever, sorry in case I did. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LSDis4me Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 I'm also guessing that while drug-testing seems like a good idea to the narrow-minded, in terms of where their taxes are going, the US constitution will prevent it from ever becoming a reality. It was found to be unconstitutional when Michigan tried it in 2000. Violates the 4th amendment. But as we've seen, getting around the constitution is a common activity for our leaders. Innit great how these "less government" teabaggers want to pay to have government checking people's piss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members schiz Posted July 31, 2011 Members Share Posted July 31, 2011 I'm sure you're an okay guy irl, but you get butthurt way too fast. Anger can be a good thing, but you were pissed from the get go for no reason what so ever. Reread my previous post, that's pretty much my "ply". Not sure what you want to hear besides that. I don't have the answers either, but I really doubt anyone's going to find them in short sighted slogans and clich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members schiz Posted July 31, 2011 Members Share Posted July 31, 2011 I'm also guessing that while drug-testing seems like a good idea to the narrow-minded, in terms of where their taxes are going, the US constitution will prevent it from ever becoming a reality. I love the fact you use the term narrow minded all the while all you have is convoluted quips to add to this discussion. Seriously man.. is that all youve got to offer? Really getting old trying to filter through all the bull{censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cyprusg Posted July 31, 2011 Members Share Posted July 31, 2011 I'm on the fence about it, it just seems logical that if you're going to give assistance to someone it's for ASSISTANCE and not for smoking crack. But what happens when you cut their welfare benefits, do we just kick them out on the street so they can start robbing people for their drugs? Or how about those cracked up mothers that still have children and still use at least some of the governments assistance to feed them, where do they go? Is it better for them to be in foster care? Honestly I don't know the answer to these questions, but I know that 44 million people needing food stamps is ridiculous and the system is being abused without a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members placebo62 Posted July 31, 2011 Members Share Posted July 31, 2011 I'll be the first one here to apologise if I went out of line anywhere, I just have a hard time taking someone seriously when he's judging an entire group of people soley based on his own personal experience. The "get up and take control of your life" type of speeches don't amount to nothing, and they're downright insulting to single moms, dissabled/ill people, or anyone else who doesn't have much choice... So, if it doesn't amount to nothing, you're saying it amounts to something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Estephan Rodriguez-Torres Posted July 31, 2011 Members Share Posted July 31, 2011 How about the issue be dealt with front on? It seems as though there is a large portion of people who are drug dependant and don't know how to manage their finances. To me it seems more logical (but not cheaper) to educate and assist, opposed to denying people welfare payments. I can only imagine that would introduce a whole lotta other issues. I'm in Australia, and i've spent a significant amount of time on government assistance. That in itself is degrading enough, let alone being required to pass a drug test to receive my payments. And no, i haven't, and still don't, do drugs. I don't agree with people abusing the system, but i am strongly against drug testing to determine who is fit for welfare payments as the resolution to a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CodeMonk Posted July 31, 2011 Members Share Posted July 31, 2011 I'm sure this has been brought up....I'm on the fence here.In some US states, marijuana is legal. Would testing positive for that in states where it is legal for medical use mean a welfare recipient would be denied their welfare checks? And that person had met all the requirements for medical marijuana? I'm smoking right now. But I suffer from arthritis, migraines and back pain. It helps. It really helps the migraines a lot. And no, I'm not on welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Federal law overrides the state laws, and they don't recognize any legit use of marijuana - even for people with AIDS or who are dying of cancer. Frankly, I think that's blarney - if you're dying and you get relief from whatever, IMHO, you should be allowed to have it without having to worry about being arrested... Anyway, I think we can let this poli thread fade away now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.