Piss Test

[onebadbeast]

Right On! You Go C-girl! Dont Make Me Pass One Cause All My Drugs Are Legal.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

So,you're saying that Government should have a drug test just because you have a conservative employer(that does require a drug screen.) Well,that's TEXAS for ya.I prefer more privacy than that.It seems like a good idea,but all incursions on privacy of individuals seems well meant in the beginning.Once you start,it's tempting to keep going down that road.What if the Government does get a positive test? You gunna prosecute them for doing drugs? Then you've just treated the poor different from others(who don't use Gov't aid.)Rich kids in the burbs never get tested,and never go to jail.They steal from parents to buy drugs.I'd rather people get caught for drugs when they do something to get someone's attention.You cause trouble.You have drugs on you...o.k.,then charge them for drugs.It's one thing for private companies to do it,but not crazy about Gov't testing people who haven't caused trouble yet.

[Danzig]

the gov already tests people. military, anyone with a cdl-when you sign the papers to get that particular type of drivers license, you also are signing a statement acknowledging you can be tested at any time. apparently getting a cdl is now 'probable cause'. and kids get tested at many schools. i don't agree with any of it. some employers require it as a pre-employment screen, others have a test if you suffer an injury/have an accident at work.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the gov already tests people. military, anyone with a cdl-when you sign the papers to get that particular type of drivers license, you also are signing a statement acknowledging you can be tested at any time. apparently getting a cdl is now 'probable cause'. and kids get tested at many schools. i don't agree with any of it. some employers require it as a pre-employment screen, others have a test if you suffer an injury/have an accident at work.

Well,I just don't know where you stop with this.You can make a case to support any invasion of privacy.Like I've said many times,we can be like Turkey,and have emails be checked.Have regular postal mail be checked by whatever Gov't officers deem it important to do so.I am not nearly as concerned with the private companies doing it,but the GOV'T should have some probable cause to test.Otherwise,there is no end to this,because you can always make a case we're better off if we just check everybody's email,or whatever.

[cowgirlintexas]

This was just an e-mail that I received in my inbox, not something I created. However, I do see the persons point about how quite a few of the people on welfare, are on drugs and how our tax $$ contribute to their habit. I sure think it would be interesting to see how many actually had to go to work because the welfare checks/Food stamps were'nt being handed to them quite so easily. I'm sure we can all think of a few that we would like to see this pertain to.

As far as drug-testing in the work place... I never understood that theroy unless it was because of a job safety sorta thing.


Just my 2 cents

[Mortimer]

^^ Had 2 customers last night

[SCUDSBROTHER]

There are 2 issues here: 1)These checks you're talking about,and 2)Drug testing.

I think it's not a great idea for people of any ideology to link the two issues.Even if ya think it's cool for the Gov't to drug test,I really think it's a mistake to link it to financial need.That's unequal treatment(to test one group routinely, because they are poor.)I'm against the gov't drug testing citizens,but if it was done,I think it should be done 2 ways(neither based on financial need.)The 1st would be when people get their drivers license,and the second would be when your actions cause you to get arrested.I'm against either situation,but it's better than just testing poor people.People who are addicted to drugs will point themselves out.You don't have to test all the poor in order to point them out.People are mistaken if they think this amount of money will satisfy an important drug habit.This isn't like somebody laying around eating too many cheeseburgers.They go through money,and they get more money in various illegal ways.Most of these people are costing you money,but not particularly with these checks.They cost you money to keep locking them up.It's a big problem.We haven't tackled it well.If there was an easy solution,we would have done it.Free societies are are always gunna struggle to control supply.I think aggressive capitalist countries are "naturals" for producing drug addicts.Look at our role models.They aren't teachers,priests,ministers,government workers,factory workers,policeman,etc.No,the role models sold to us are examples of excess.Like this guy Romney.He has spent 30 million of his own money to run for a job he may/may not get.The fact one guy even has that much money is excessive,and then his actions (spending it on running for a job he probably isn't gunna get) are excessive.This is an example of what Americans are taught as the ideal role model.The target is excess,and we get there(unfortunately often in artificial ways like taking drugs.)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well,I just don't know where you stop with this.You can make a case to support any invasion of privacy.Like I've said many times,we can be like Turkey,and have emails be checked.Have regular postal mail be checked by whatever Gov't officers deem it important to do so.I am not nearly as concerned with the private companies doing it,but the GOV'T should have some probable cause to test.Otherwise,there is no end to this,because you can always make a case we're better off if we just check everybody's email,or whatever.

i just don't think you should be tested until there is probable cause. having a cdl isn't probable cause, or being a student athlete. however, probable cause could be argued if you are at work and have an accident--a fork truck driver hitting a pole for example....i just think that if you start chipping a bit at a right, then it makes it easier to chip a bit more, and maybe a bit more. til suddenly, that right no longer exists.