drug testing welfare recipients violates 4th Amendment???

[Lex Concord]

The only way I look at it is if you have to take a drug test to "earn" money from a job you should have to take a drug test to receive free money

Still trying to make sense of this, as not all jobs require a drug test. In fact, I would wager, most don't.

Oh...sorry...just 9 more to go...go get 'em!

 

[Lex Concord]

No comment on the cost/benefit ratio?

Here's one.

It's a moot point.

 

[hornadylnl]

Could Irsay pass a drug screen?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Cut em off, let em starve, I just don't care anymore. Let them go build a shack in the Hoosier National forest and live off the land for all I really care.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Here's one.

It's a moot point.

How so?

 

[Lex Concord]

How so?

Maybe not to the OP, but in the grand scheme, it's arguing the future pattern of the deck chairs.

 

[MikeDVB]

Wouldn't it be much better and more efficient to just control the drug market? I mean we spend billions fighting drugs - make them prescription only and tax them - destroy the 'private' market for the drugs as well as the multi-billion dollar waste that is the 'drug war' [it's a waste because it's a catastrophic failure].

Want you some legal drugs? Can't get them with an EBT - sorry.

Understand I'm not biased when it comes to drug use - if you choose to do it that's up to you and not me. I just think there's a lot of better ways to do this that don't involve involuntary drug testing that's likely to cost quite a bit and accomplish very little.

I've not put a lot of deep thought into this, just a minute or two of quick thought - so if there are flaws in my suggestion of a plan - sure - point them out if you want as I'm sure there are more than a few.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Maybe not to the OP, but in the grand scheme, it's arguing the future pattern of the deck chairs.

That still doesn't explain how it's a moot point. The cost of implementing has proven to be greater than the savings.

 

[spirit390]

EBT and Food Access | GrowNYC

 

[Lex Concord]

That still doesn't explain how it's a moot point. The cost of implementing has proven to be greater than the savings.

Great. I'm glad you have a concern there, I don't. Either result is bad. Testing or no testing, welfare still exists. You're counting zinc pennies while the gold bars are still being chucked out the window either way.

I find it (relative to the 4th) nothing more than an interesting philosophical exercise. That said, it's still a moot point. dross laid it out pretty well.

 

[ultra...good]

If you have enough money to buy drugs, why do you need help to buy food?

Same thing near where i live, the section 8 housing. Majority, if not all of them have satellite dish on them. If you can afford pay tv, why do you need help paying your rent?

 

[hornadylnl]

If you have enough money to buy drugs, why do you need help to buy food?

Same thing near where i live, the section 8 housing. Majority, if not all of them have satellite dish on them. If you can afford pay tv, why do you need help paying your rent?

I'm sure there's at least 1 ingoer who can answer these questions.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you have enough money to buy drugs, why do you need help to buy food?

Same thing near where i live, the section 8 housing. Majority, if not all of them have satellite dish on them. If you can afford pay tv, why do you need help paying your rent?

I think it goes something like this: Because you already have won the lottery in life and have enough and that's not fair. You need to pay your fair share...

 

[88GT]

Wouldn't it be much better and more efficient to just control the drug market? I mean we spend billions fighting drugs - make them prescription only and tax them - destroy the 'private' market for the drugs as well as the multi-billion dollar waste that is the 'drug war' [it's a waste because it's a catastrophic failure].

Want you some legal drugs? Can't get them with an EBT - sorry.

Understand I'm not biased when it comes to drug use - if you choose to do it that's up to you and not me. I just think there's a lot of better ways to do this that don't involve involuntary drug testing that's likely to cost quite a bit and accomplish very little.

I've not put a lot of deep thought into this, just a minute or two of quick thought - so if there are flaws in my suggestion of a plan - sure - point them out if you want as I'm sure there are more than a few.

No, because government-controlled markets are ALWAYS less efficient than free markets. The black market for legal, prescription drugs should illustrate that fact plainly. Why would you willingly hand government more control? /rhetorical

The better and more efficient way of dealing with things is eliminate all entitlement spending funded through wealth redistribution taxation, eliminate the prohibition on pharmaceuticals--all of them, and let people fend for themselves based on the choices they make.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No, because government-controlled markets are ALWAYS less efficient than free markets. The black market for legal, prescription drugs should illustrate that fact plainly. Why would you willingly hand government more control? /rhetorical

The better and more efficient way of dealing with things is eliminate all entitlement spending funded through wealth redistribution taxation, eliminate the prohibition on pharmaceuticals--all of them, and let people fend for themselves based on the choices they make.

A self-correcting feedback mechanism would automatically correct a lot of this behavior but folks would have to be willing to watch the spouses, kids, etc. suffer along with the ones destroying their own lives.

 

[Lex Concord]

A self-correcting feedback mechanism would automatically correct a lot of this behavior but folks would have to be willing to watch the spouses, kids, etc. suffer along with the ones destroying their own lives.

That's what real charity is for. Welfare as charity is just another case of government working to usurp the Alpha/Omega role in everyone's lives.

People suffer, government "assistance" notwithstanding; government merely shifts the suffering and compounds it by adding theft and lies.

 

[88GT]

A self-correcting feedback mechanism would automatically correct a lot of this behavior but folks would have to be willing to watch the spouses, kids, etc. suffer along with the ones destroying their own lives.

Wealth redistribution hasn't stopped any suffering. How would it be any different than what we see now?

Charity would be far more forthcoming if people had the full complement of their income to use as they see fit. As it is, I "give" GENEROUSLY every year in the form of taxes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's what real charity is for. Welfare as charity is just another case of government working to usurp the Alpha/Omega role in everyone's lives.

People suffer, government "assistance" notwithstanding; government merely shifts the suffering and compounds it by adding theft and lies.

Wealth redistribution hasn't stopped any suffering. How would it be any different than what we see now?

Charity would be far more forthcoming if people had the full complement of their income to use as they see fit. As it is, I "give" GENEROUSLY every year in the form of taxes.

No argument. If we could choose to whom to give our help, there would likely be some people that get help now they don't really deserve that would be cut off. There would be people that enable, condone, or support abusers that might be left to their own devices because we may decide to give to charities that will only help those that truly want to do what it takes to improve their station. The ones that would be left out because they want a subsidy rather than a helping hand might just find themselves out in the cold and for the situation to self-correct, people must be willing to let them hit rock bottom...this might include their kids too.

 

[MikeDVB]

No, because government-controlled markets are ALWAYS less efficient than free markets. The black market for legal, prescription drugs should illustrate that fact plainly. Why would you willingly hand government more control? /rhetorical

The better and more efficient way of dealing with things is eliminate all entitlement spending funded through wealth redistribution taxation, eliminate the prohibition on pharmaceuticals--all of them, and let people fend for themselves based on the choices they make.

Well I wasn't going to the point of just saying 'legalize it' as I wasn't sure how that would be viewed here. I do know most are against government control but I would see government control over illicit substances as the lesser of two evils if it were what we haven now [black market + drug war] vs government controlled illicit substances.

In short - end the drug war - re-allocate those billions of dollars to something better and let those that wish to destroy their lives to do so.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Great. I'm glad you have a concern there, I don't. Either result is bad. Testing or no testing, welfare still exists. You're counting zinc pennies while the gold bars are still being chucked out the window either way.

I find it (relative to the 4th) nothing more than an interesting philosophical exercise. That said, it's still a moot point. dross laid it out pretty well.

I'm outraged at both. What is ridiculous is somehow thinking that there is a cost savings by doing the drug testing when it's proven to cost more than it saves. That is not a moot point. Claiming it to be moot is sticking your head in the sand. Spending $50 to save 10 cents doesn't mean you saved 10 cents, it means you just threw $49.90 out the window and THINK you saved 10 cents.