Michigan GOP

[Spartanmack]

No, I'm talking about abusing pain killers like a lot of people i've known do, it's pretty much the same thing as shooting herion but it's high class.

So in other words, we shouldn't require people to pass a drug test in order to qualify for public benefits because people who don't need public benefits also abuse drugs. That makes so much more sense.

 

[Sbee]

Why is that? Why is ok for the private sector to discriminate against criminals if the government can't? discrimination is discrimination. Is it because they're entitled to our money so they shouldn't be held to any minimum standards in order to get it?



1. I don't think this is about kicking people off of welfare to save money. It's about telling people they need to get their shit together in order to receive public benefits.

2. Good point. We should definitely not worry about those kids growing up in homes w/ drug addicted parents and all the things that go along with that. No way those public assistance checks are going to drugs, taking food off the table - those drug addicts are way too responsible to do that. Plus, I'm sure most of them do their best parenting after a few hits of the crack pipe. Do it for the kids for goodness sake!

3. Another good point - so I guess it is your contention that these folks are simply self medicating. I didn't realize the drug trade was just an under the table pain management program for the victims of our failed health care system. This may be your best argument yet for ending the war on drugs.

Yes, this probably is just a GOP chest beating exercise to get those talk radio types all fired up. Nobody really believes in accountability, they just want ratings. It's all just more shock politics!

1 this is just feeding to the stereotype that people love that welfare lifestyle and are content to live off of it forever. 55% of people on welfare are off within 2 years and 80% are off within 5 years, I'm sure these people are trying to get their shit together.

2 wow, you really love that sterotype of the black crack somking mom with a million kids running around. the average size of a family on welfare is the same as one not on welfare. as for drugs, it's all crack, right? I mean, it could never be pot or something like that. let's just deal with the issues of confiscating kids, that would be just wonderful.

3 what's the difference between being an alcoholic or a drug user? one is legal and one isn't but if you're just concerned about kids and people using their benefits to get high, why don't you want them to get drunk?

This policy really is just for show, something for the mid 50's rich guy to post on his facebook wall to feel good. anything that sticks it to the poor is all right with them, especially that black welfare queen with 10 kids, i mean, that's so rampant, right?

 

[Sbee]

I've got it, an even better bill. Let's test all parents, not just welfare recipients. I mean, it's all about the kids, right?

 

[Michchamp]

So in other words, we shouldn't require people to pass a drug test in order to qualify for public benefits because people who don't need public benefits also abuse drugs. That makes so much more sense.

Constitutional & policy issues weigh against it. The ACLU also published a cost-benefit analysis of it, making it clear that it's not cost effective... so even if you like being a dick and subjecting poor welfare recipients to drug tests just because (but of course, not recipients of other welfare, like corporations receiving tax breaks or subsidies, the TARP bailouts, farm subsidies, defense contractors...), it's going to cost taxpayers MORE money to drug test all welfare recipients for little to no benefit.

The GOP created the myth of the Welfare Queen, and no amount of evidence is going to get them to drop that one... it's just been too successful at the ballot box.

From the ACLU study

• Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines[3] ? rates that are in line with the drug use rates of the general population.[4]
• Seventy percent of all illicit drug users (and presumably a much higher percentage of alcohol users), ages 18-49, are employed full-time.[5]

the thing about Michigan is interesting... it turns out the state of Michigan already did this once in 1999... and stopped doing it already after a lawsuit from the ACLU challenging the Constitutionality of it. They agreed to limit drug testing on when there was reasonable suspicion the recipient was using drugs.

JESUS CHRIST the Michigan GOP is too dumb to remember policies they enacted 15 years ago???

 

[Michchamp]

From the ACLU's press release on the original Michigan policy/lawsuit:

"In the five weeks that the program was in effect, the drug tests were positive in only eight percent of the cases, a percentage that is consistent with drug use in the general population. Of 268 people tested, only 21 tested positive for drugs and all but three were for marijuana."

 

[Michchamp]

cue Spartanprick telling us how dangerous marijuana use is, and why we need to spend taxpayer dollars drug testing welfare recipients to catch potheads...

 

[tinselwolverine]

God damn!

This thread is funny.

Keep it up, boys, nice work on both sides.

One or two of you other conservatives might wanna step it up though, so SpartanMack isn't stuck doing all the heavy lifting from that side...

 

[byco42]

I'll back drug-testing welfare recipients when MI passes a law that drug tests its legislators and potential candidates. And college football coaches.

 

[Sbee]

I'll back drug-testing welfare recipients when MI passes a law that drug tests its legislators and potential candidates. And college football coaches.

that's right, if someone really wants to go down this road the only just way to do it is to test everyone, all the time. what these representatives are saying basically is that you have less right to privacy the poorer you are.

You could also test all students at public universities, since taxpayer dollars are subsidizing their educations

Edit: we should only test in state students, if you're from out of state you can do all of the drugs you want since you're paying higher tuition

 

[byco42]

that's right, if someone really wants to go down this road the only just way to do it is to test everyone, all the time. what these representatives are saying basically is that you have less right to privacy the poorer you are.

You could also test all students at public universities, since taxpayer dollars are subsidizing their educations

Edit: we should only test in state students, if you're from out of state you can do all of the drugs you want since you're paying higher tuition

I'd definitely say test all Spartans but what's the point? We already know they are on drugs.

 

[Michchamp]

I suspect drug usage among college students is higher than the 8% rates they've seen for welfare recipients.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Why stop there? Everyone on assistance should wear bodycameras. All students too. Well, heck, everybody benefits from the government one way or another. DRUG TESTS AND BODY CAMERAS FOR EVERYBODY!!

 

[Gulo Blue]

...and as usual. Don't mistake my aligning with all the liberals to mean I'm liberal. It's not my fault the liberals happen to be aligning themselves to the small government position/Spartanmack to the big government position.

 

[Spartanmack]

1 this is just feeding to the stereotype that people love that welfare lifestyle and are content to live off of it forever. 55% of people on welfare are off within 2 years and 80% are off within 5 years, I'm sure these people are trying to get their shit together.

2 wow, you really love that sterotype of the black crack somking mom with a million kids running around. the average size of a family on welfare is the same as one not on welfare. as for drugs, it's all crack, right? I mean, it could never be pot or something like that. let's just deal with the issues of confiscating kids, that would be just wonderful.

3 what's the difference between being an alcoholic or a drug user? one is legal and one isn't but if you're just concerned about kids and people using their benefits to get high, why don't you want them to get drunk?

This policy really is just for show, something for the mid 50's rich guy to post on his facebook wall to feel good. anything that sticks it to the poor is all right with them, especially that black welfare queen with 10 kids, i mean, that's so rampant, right?

This could be your dumbest post yet - which would be quite an achievement.

1. 45% still on welfare after 2 years - that is a HUGE number (as is 20% on it after 5 years) particularly when you consider that over half of Americans are now receiving some type of government assistance. Do you really think those statistics indicate success?

2. you just love to make this about race so you can call me a racist. I've mentioned marijuana, heroine and prescription pain killers in this thread so take your half-assed michturd race card tactics and fuck off. And what's your point about average family size, which I made no mention of whatsoever? Are you now saying that it's no big deal because drug abusing welfare recipients are only corrupting and neglecting 2 or 3 kids on average? This is a monumentally stupid argument.

3. this is another absurd statement. you're the one who said if they can't get high, they'll just ease their pain with alcohol so we should just let them get high. I was merely pointing out what a stupid argument that is.

And here you go again with your conclusion that only rich white guys who listen to talk radio and watch Fox News support policies like this. So funny that you make statements like this and then say they're the ones that are out of touch.

 

[Sbee]

Why stop there? Everyone on assistance should wear bodycameras. All students too. Well, heck, everybody benefits from the government one way or another. DRUG TESTS AND BODY CAMERAS FOR EVERYBODY!!

exactly, who has the right to privacy and who doesn't? when you open it up, it doesn't stop.

 

[Michchamp]

...and as usual. Don't mistake my aligning with all the liberals to mean I'm liberal. It's not my fault the liberals happen to be aligning themselves to the small government position/Spartanmack to the big government position.

he's "big government" when it comes to further breaking the poor and minorities... he likes to see the full power of the state brought down on single mothers, poor children, the elderly, and the infirm, crushing their bodies. After all, it's their own fault they're poor. They should've gotten MBAs from UChicago like he did. They deserve every minute of their suffering, and he relishes watching them writhe in pain and agony.

 

[Spartanmack]

...and as usual. Don't mistake my aligning with all the liberals to mean I'm liberal. It's not my fault the liberals happen to be aligning themselves to the small government position/Spartanmack to the big government position.

Hang on a second here. All I've done so far is point out the absurd logic in Sbee's arguments. It's borderline trolling but I couldn't just let those statements and his typical blowhard conservative stereotyping slide.

But for the record, in theory I'm for it. Some have said it's not cost effective but they haven't said by how much. Is it a marginal cost or an egregious burden? If marginal, it's probably worth it if they use the information to get people the help they need. As for their rights to privacy, I'm not concerned. If I have to pee in a cup to get a job, I don't think it's such an egregious ask for welfare recipients to do the same. And I absolutely think everyone in congress should have to pass a drug test as well.

 

[byco42]

I cannot get behind government drug-testing of citizens, because I am not behind government handouts to them.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If I have to pee in a cup to get a job, I don't think it's such an egregious ask for welfare recipients to do the same.

I just don't see the comparison between private companies and the government. When you go on assistance, the government isn't employing you. If we want to find out who out there is using drugs so we can help them, assistance should have nothing to do with that (obviously-we're not putting together a program to deny assistance to people out of a desire to help them). If we want to find out who's on drugs to bust them, again, assistance has nothing to do with that. So this is all about privacy rights and how invasive we want to let our government be.

 

[Sbee]

Hang on a second here. All I've done so far is point out the absurd logic in Sbee's arguments. It's borderline trolling but I couldn't just let those statements and his typical blowhard conservative stereotyping slide.

But for the record, in theory I'm for it. Some have said it's not cost effective but they haven't said by how much. Is it a marginal cost or an egregious burden? If marginal, it's probably worth it if they use the information to get people the help they need. As for their rights to privacy, I'm not concerned. If I have to pee in a cup to get a job, I don't think it's such an egregious ask for welfare recipients to do the same. And I absolutely think everyone in congress should have to pass a drug test as well.

if your argument is that they should have to do it because they're getting money from the government, you're opening this up to people on SNAP, social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, those getting obamacare subsidies, and students at public universities. all of these people are getting hand outs from the government, if you test one group, you should test them all.

If your argument is to get people the help they need, then we should test everyone. why discriminate against wealthy people when it comes to getting them proper help for drug abuse?

If your argument is to protect the children, then we should test every parent in the country. if you want to protect the kids from drug users, why just protect the kids of people on welfare?

If your argument is that you want to target the poor and get on some righteous moral high horse because you're wealthy, then you're being honest.