The real reason.... - Page 6

simi · #51 10-12-2011, 07:30 PM

And no, they aren't rose colored glasses...

d-ray657 · #52 10-12-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djv8ga

It's always about money...right Lefty?
What about fairness to the working poor?
What about cleaning up the whole damn system?

You're not gonna find me arguing on behalf of a puritanical society. The demonization of drugs has caused many more problems than it might have cured (by stopping a few people from getting addicted.) I see those mountains and mountains of cash in the drug cartel houses and wonder how much smaller those stacks would be - or even whether they would be non-existent - if we couldn't just let people get the munchies and blood shot eyes on the open market.

I agree that people should keep their faculties while they are at work - or when they are driving or could otherwise put other people at risk because of their diminished capacity. However, I don't think what someone did at home a few weeks ago - or last night as long as it is out of their system - is anyone's business. (On the other hand, I did read that Mickey Mantle was a hell of a hitter when he was hungover)

Regards,

D-Ray

djv8ga · #53 10-12-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

You're not gonna find me arguing on behalf of a puritanical society. The demonization of drugs has caused many more problems than it might have cured (by stopping a few people from getting addicted.) I see those mountains and mountains of cash in the drug cartel houses and wonder how much smaller those stacks would be - or even whether they would be non-existent - if we couldn't just let people get the munchies and blood shot eyes on the open market.

I agree that people should keep their faculties while they are at work - or when they are driving or could otherwise put other people at risk because of their diminished capacity. However, I don't think what someone did at home a few weeks ago - or last night as long as it is out of their system - is anyone's business. (On the other hand, I did read that Mickey Mantle was a hell of a hitter when he was hungover)

Regards,

D-Ray

I agree, but that's not the point. The point is WHILE the working poor has to take randoms to keep their jobs, the non-working poor should take randoms to keep their benefits.

Rex E. · #54 10-12-2011, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djv8ga

I agree, but that's not the point. The point is WHILE the working poor has to take randoms to keep their jobs, the non-working poor should take randoms to keep their benefits.

This makes sense

If I gotta take a test to get a job then have to be submitted to testing randomly then so should those that do not work and collect from the tax coffers (including all three branches of the govt)

d-ray657 · #55 10-12-2011, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djv8ga

I agree, but that's not the point. The point is WHILE the working poor has to take randoms to keep their jobs, the non-working poor should take randoms to keep their benefits.

Don't forget that many of the working poor need benefits. A common example would be a single working parent needing food stamps or rent assistance to get by. Do you want to double up on the risk that these folks could get kicked even further down into the ditch.

It just doesn't make sense to me to suggest that because one group has to put up with something that is wrong, we should extend that wrong thing to another group. The working poor should not be subject to drug testing for anything other than safety related issues - and then with testing that is narrowly focused to address the safety concern.

If someone is unemployed and looking for work, should s/he still have to piss in a cup to get his or her unemployment check? I do believe that most unemployed folks would much rather work. It doesn't make sense to me to make it harder to get work and harder to survive while looking for work.

Regards,

D-Ray

Fast_Eddie · #56 10-13-2011, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djv8ga

I agree, but that's not the point. The point is WHILE the working poor has to take randoms to keep their jobs, the non-working poor should take randoms to keep their benefits.

You don't often make sense. What you're saying is you believe drug testing is wrong and you shouldn't have to do it, but since *you* have to, you want to spend countless tax dollars testing anyone on public assistance?

Nice. I think it's a great plan. How 'bout we raise *your* taxes to pay for it? Sound good to you?

djv8ga · #57 10-13-2011, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Don't forget that many of the working poor need benefits. A common example would be a single working parent needing food stamps or rent assistance to get by. Do you want to double up on the risk that these folks could get kicked even further down into the ditch.

It just doesn't make sense to me to suggest that because one group has to put up with something that is wrong, we should extend that wrong thing to another group. The working poor should not be subject to drug testing for anything other than safety related issues - and then with testing that is narrowly focused to address the safety concern.

If someone is unemployed and looking for work, should s/he still have to piss in a cup to get his or her unemployment check? I do believe that most unemployed folks would much rather work. It doesn't make sense to me to make it harder to get work and harder to survive while looking for work.

Regards,

D-Ray

Complete B.S.

djv8ga · #58 10-13-2011, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

You don't often make sense. What you're saying is you believe drug testing is wrong and you shouldn't have to do it, but since *you* have to, you want to spend countless tax dollars testing anyone on public assistance?

Nice. I think it's a great plan. How 'bout we raise *your* taxes to pay for it? Sound good to you?

People who recieve benefits should be tested first.
Again, with the left, it's always about money. Don't tell me about spending money Lefty.

Sure, after we fire 50% of the Federal Government, I will take a small increase in my STATE taxes to test the LAZY Lefty Flea Baggers...You bet your ass you Socialist POS.

simi · #59 10-13-2011, 05:58 AM

Keep beating the dog.. it will eventually quit yelping.

There ya go.. tell people they have to pay to take a test to get assistance, and if they had enough money to take a test, then they wouldn't be asking for assistance..

the ONLY one that will benefit from testing is the testing company... more money for big biz and big pharma... right on...

djv8ga · #60 10-13-2011, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simi

Keep beating the dog.. it will eventually quit yelping.

There ya go.. tell people they have to pay to take a test to get assistance, and if they had enough money to take a test, then they wouldn't be asking for assistance..

the ONLY one that will benefit from testing is the testing company... more money for big biz and big pharma... right on...

Delusional and spin.