- 6,396
- 16
- Joined
- May 1, 2006
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
No worries, I just didn't wanna be put in the same category as the clowns who actually DO view beer as that.Originally Posted by Rexanglorum
Originally Posted by WITNESSkb24
I don't drink nor do I view beer like that, but thanks.....You know what they say about how you shouldn't ASSUme, right?Originally Posted by Rexanglorum
You guys do realize the perverse incentive created by such a law? It should be called the "trade in marijuana for crack, meth and heroin act." THC stays in a person's system for weeks while cocaine and opiates and methamphetamine will usually be out of an addict's system within days. This encourages someone who might have only smoked marijuana to take up stronger, more dagerous and more addictive drugs.
Will the CEO's of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, AIG and Goldman Sachs and every other bailed out firm be willing to piss in a cup on demand. They are all welfare recipients after all.
Will tobacco, caffeine and alcohol be on that list of banned substances? (does anyone else find it ironic that the OP and the person who is so gung ho about this law counts "beer" among his trinity of good things in life. Beer is, despite all of the history, mystique and marketing surrounding it, a mind altering substance).
The definition of "recipient of government benefits" is very elastic. I understand the underlying logic of drug testing people who receive tax payer to beneficiary payments. However, as Senator Orrin Hatch proposed, everyone who gets Unemployment benefits should be drugs tested. In theory at least, those benefits are a form of insurance and not welfare payments as is social security and medicare and workers' compensation. Should we test anyone in those programs. What about anyone whose mortgage was bundled and sold to a GSE? What about any who every drives on government funded roads.
Finally, I hope that you younger people here take a lesson from this. Big government means less privacy for you. The more benefits that you get from the public treasury, the more they attach strings to those benefits and one day a "free" man might be treated about the same as an inmate in a penitentiary today.
This was from, another thread about Missouri doing the same thing and everything but that point is the same. I will edit this pro forma response because, it seems like this drug testing for benefits in various states is catching on all over the country.
No worries, I just didn't wanna be put in the same category as the clowns who actually DO view beer as that.Originally Posted by Rexanglorum
Originally Posted by WITNESSkb24
I don't drink nor do I view beer like that, but thanks.....You know what they say about how you shouldn't ASSUme, right?Originally Posted by Rexanglorum
You guys do realize the perverse incentive created by such a law? It should be called the "trade in marijuana for crack, meth and heroin act." THC stays in a person's system for weeks while cocaine and opiates and methamphetamine will usually be out of an addict's system within days. This encourages someone who might have only smoked marijuana to take up stronger, more dagerous and more addictive drugs.
Will the CEO's of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, AIG and Goldman Sachs and every other bailed out firm be willing to piss in a cup on demand. They are all welfare recipients after all.
Will tobacco, caffeine and alcohol be on that list of banned substances? (does anyone else find it ironic that the OP and the person who is so gung ho about this law counts "beer" among his trinity of good things in life. Beer is, despite all of the history, mystique and marketing surrounding it, a mind altering substance).
The definition of "recipient of government benefits" is very elastic. I understand the underlying logic of drug testing people who receive tax payer to beneficiary payments. However, as Senator Orrin Hatch proposed, everyone who gets Unemployment benefits should be drugs tested. In theory at least, those benefits are a form of insurance and not welfare payments as is social security and medicare and workers' compensation. Should we test anyone in those programs. What about anyone whose mortgage was bundled and sold to a GSE? What about any who every drives on government funded roads.
Finally, I hope that you younger people here take a lesson from this. Big government means less privacy for you. The more benefits that you get from the public treasury, the more they attach strings to those benefits and one day a "free" man might be treated about the same as an inmate in a penitentiary today.
This was from, another thread about Missouri doing the same thing and everything but that point is the same. I will edit this pro forma response because, it seems like this drug testing for benefits in various states is catching on all over the country.
Originally Posted by LieutenantDan93
Just going to make more money for the companies who provide the drug tests..
Originally Posted by LieutenantDan93
Just going to make more money for the companies who provide the drug tests..
Originally Posted by TruthGetsBusy
I can't rock with this. Of course people shouldn't be on drugs but its more to it than that.
Originally Posted by TruthGetsBusy
I can't rock with this. Of course people shouldn't be on drugs but its more to it than that.
Originally Posted by Rexanglorum
You guys do realize the perverse incentive created by such a law? It should be called the "trade in marijuana for crack, meth and heroin act." THC stays in a person's system for weeks while cocaine and opiates and methamphetamine will usually be out of an addict's system within days. This encourages someone who might have only smoked marijuana to take up stronger, more dagerous and more addictive drugs.
Will the CEO's of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, AIG and Goldman Sachs and every other bailed out firm be willing to piss in a cup on demand. They are all welfare recipients after all.
Will tobacco, caffeine and alcohol be on that list of banned substances?
The definition of "recipient of government benefits" is very elastic. I understand the underlying logic of drug testing people who receive tax payer to beneficiary payments. However, as Senator Orrin Hatch proposed, everyone who gets Unemployment benefits should be drugs tested. In theory at least, those benefits are a form of insurance and not welfare payments as is social security and medicare and workers' compensation. Should we test anyone in those programs. What about anyone whose mortgage was bundled and sold to a GSE? What about any who every drives on government funded roads.
Finally, I hope that you younger people here take a lesson from this. Big government means less privacy for you. The more benefits that you get from the public treasury, the more they attach strings to those benefits and one day a "free" man might be treated about the same as an inmate in a penitentiary today.
Originally Posted by Rexanglorum
You guys do realize the perverse incentive created by such a law? It should be called the "trade in marijuana for crack, meth and heroin act." THC stays in a person's system for weeks while cocaine and opiates and methamphetamine will usually be out of an addict's system within days. This encourages someone who might have only smoked marijuana to take up stronger, more dagerous and more addictive drugs.
Will the CEO's of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, AIG and Goldman Sachs and every other bailed out firm be willing to piss in a cup on demand. They are all welfare recipients after all.
Will tobacco, caffeine and alcohol be on that list of banned substances?
The definition of "recipient of government benefits" is very elastic. I understand the underlying logic of drug testing people who receive tax payer to beneficiary payments. However, as Senator Orrin Hatch proposed, everyone who gets Unemployment benefits should be drugs tested. In theory at least, those benefits are a form of insurance and not welfare payments as is social security and medicare and workers' compensation. Should we test anyone in those programs. What about anyone whose mortgage was bundled and sold to a GSE? What about any who every drives on government funded roads.
Finally, I hope that you younger people here take a lesson from this. Big government means less privacy for you. The more benefits that you get from the public treasury, the more they attach strings to those benefits and one day a "free" man might be treated about the same as an inmate in a penitentiary today.
well for one college kids are not wasting my tax money
@ you thinking financial aid isn't going to Jordans, louis purses, video games...
well for one college kids are not wasting my tax money
@ you thinking financial aid isn't going to Jordans, louis purses, video games...