Glory Days;787365 wrote:to tie this in with the war on drugs thread, this only works if drugs remain illegal right?

No, why would it?

So, they only have to pass ONE test, or it becomes another sink hole testing repeatedly (I've never worked anywhere that did more than one pre-employment drug screen)?

How hard is it to pass one test? And then people that fail, well they must be addicts, and so the responsible thing is to pay for treatment, right?. And, of course, it would be wrong to deny them benefits while they are being treated for a disease. Is this going to have a positive ROI, or at least a cost that achieves a desirable social effect? The war on drugs is ineffective, so this is just money down the drain, right?

Apple;787759 wrote:The morallowground.com article says that all adult recipients are required to pay the $35 fee for the drug tests. I don't know what kind of clerical or other expenses will be incurred with the new law, but it obviously doesn't include the cost of the test. The same article also states that the law provides zero funds for substance abuse treatment programs, though I guess it's possible that unemployed drug users have other treatment options.

It was interesting the article says that only 10% of the Michigan unemployed recipients have been found to be illegal drug users. To put a guess at the total number of Florida recipients at 50,000 means 5,000 will be booted off the assistance. At an estimated $350 per month per 5,000 recipients, thats a savings of $1.75Million a month.

The externalities that society will bear by booting people off TANF are greater than that I'd imagine. These people are saying they need to be on the public dole to live. Sure, let's accept that they're full of it....let's just accept that they're lazy and need to learn to support themselves. Let's accept that as true. You kick them off the legal public dole and they are not going to suddenly become self-reliant model citizens in a world where there are no jobs to be had at 10% unemployment and slacking public demand. Now yes, some of these people could find jobs. yes, yes, yes. But, the definition of high unemployment in the world we have is that there is not enough work for people who want to work. Maybe, if people were building houses like mad like in Aughts, they might be able to look in the paper and find a house they could help build but that ain't the case right now and nobody in power seems to care. Even if everyone in this world was a diligent hard worker willing to work, there is not enough work to go around.

I'm not disagreeing with your running of the numbers I just know that one liberal think tank estimated that it was relatively costly per drug user. You may very well be right and I could certainly be wrong. The point is...we could have real savings for society if the government enacted policies that would put these people to work (at least until the business cycle finally comes back) rather than kicking them out of the health and human services office wandering the streets trying to figure out what they're going to do to eat. Or, they could go to undoubtedly a tax payer subsidized drug treatment program so they can get their benefits back. These people are on TANF in Florida....if they want their bennies back, do you think they're going to have money to pay for their drug treatment?

My gf works in a bank in Cleveland on Broadway and they have been robbed twice...thankfully none yet with a gun just a guy with a note. I appreciate the problem of people on the public dole. Literally the first and third of every month there is a line out the door of her bank of people there to get their gubment check. The whole neighborhood sucks and people wander the streets in the day without a job. But at least they're not robbing her bank. Maybe if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act wasn't a joke and really reinvested in our urban communities it'd be different. Now that her bank (which is doing quite well after the feds handed them a competitor in the recession) has decided they no longer need to contract with actual armed cops but unarmed security guards who knows maybe it won't matter.

dwccrew;787407 wrote:
Incorrect. Alcohol is legal, however, if I am tested at work and have used alcohol I will be fired. Tobacco products are legal, however, it is illegal to smoke in public places in certain states. Just because something is legal doesn't mean certain places, programs or services can't require you not to use in order to have access to that place or service.

People would have a choice to make in this case. I have no problem giving people the right to choose. What's more important to you, receiving gov't aid or using drugs. They choose to receive aid, be drug free. You want to use drugs, fine but no govt aid. See how easy it is?

that works great for your PRIVATE company and for actions that effect other people directly. what happend to the government monitoring what i do in my own home and what about the slippery slope? whats next, people on welfare being told to not eat food with saturated fat or they wont get their money?



and yes, i am playing devil's advocate here.

BoatShoes;787788 wrote:The externalities that society will bear by booting people off TANF are greater than that I'd imagine. These people are saying they need to be on the public dole to live. Sure, let's accept that they're full of it....let's just accept that they're lazy and need to learn to support themselves. Let's accept that as true. You kick them off the legal public dole and they are not going to suddenly become self-reliant model citizens in a world where there are no jobs to be had at 10% unemployment and slacking public demand. Now yes, some of these people could find jobs.

It's amazing what people can do when they're hungry enough.

Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?

Glory Days;787890 wrote:that works great for your PRIVATE company and for actions that effect other people directly. what happend to the government monitoring what i do in my own home and what about the slippery slope? whats next, people on welfare being told to not eat food with saturated fat or they wont get their money?

Yes. Don't shit yourself. If you are directly recieving funds or benefits from the state, the state can place any conditions it pleases on receipt of the funds or benefits. Believe or not there are people who would love to regulate individual food consumption and they exist in places of power in various levels of government.

majorspark;787914 wrote: Believe or not there are people who would love to regulate individual food consumption and they exist in places of power in various levels of government.

This is already happening with bans on trans fats and the like. Not to derail the thread, but it's an interesting question - once you get used to less sugar and salt, it's not only healthier but the other stuff doesn't taste as good, so is the govt regulating it so evil or infringing on people's rights?

People who disagree with those sorts of bans don't disagree with them because they think non trans-fat foods taste bad. They disagree with them because they don't think the governent should tell people to put in their bodies as long as things are properly labled and such.

If a functioning adult wants to eat nothing but bacon fried in lard that's up to them. It's stupid as hell but whatever.

I Wear Pants;787929 wrote:People who disagree with those sorts of bans don't disagree with them because they think non trans-fat foods taste bad. They disagree with them because they don't think the governent should tell people to put in their bodies as long as things are properly labled and such.

If a functioning adult wants to eat nothing but bacon fried in lard that's up to them. It's stupid as hell but whatever.

And, yet, we expect, indeed RELY ON the FDA to do just this sort of thing every day. While the social costs (healthcare costs) of such is a very real gray area between public interest and individual rights, the infringement on individual rights here is rather complex. If something kills us slowly we want the option but if it kills us quick we want the govt to step in? I mean, who reads the labels - I'm talking the ingredients you've never heard of and then going to look up the risks? We expect what is on shelves to be safe - there's a whole long list of stuff you don't get to choose from because it never makes the shelves, and that's perfectly fine. But when new research and evidence comes to light to suggest that should be removed from the shelves, people get in a hissy.

Look, I'm a free market guy, but I recognize the market adjustment is sometimes too slow or hindered by other frictions. I don't see the great infringment on personal rights because you can't guzzle transfats and I struggle to take issue with the govt pushing or accelerating where the market wants things to go. At least in this issue I see a clear benefit and struggle to see any real loss of personal freedom. The reality is we believe in and want healthcare for everyone, but just like you pay a higher rate if you smoke people should be subject to restrictions or higher rates when their choices affect my wallet.

What you really have is a social contract in which you are subjogating some of your personal freedom from the social/group benefit - you don't get to partake in the benefit and then not share the costs/burdens. I can respect that you take issue with being forced to agree to that social contract, but that's like a whole other message board.

No, we rely on the FDA to ensure that labling and such is actually true and inspect for qualities.

gut;787963 wrote:What you really have is a social contract in which you are subjogating some of your personal freedom from the social/group benefit - you don't get to partake in the benefit and then not share the costs/burdens. I can respect that you take issue with being forced to agree to that social contract, but that's like a whole other message board.

I agree. I prefer that many of these social contracts occur at the lower levels of governance. State and local. Less people are forced to agree to the contract. I believe that is how our government was set up.

If mayor Bloomberg wants to ban trans fats in New York City big deal. I'll enjoy mine here in Ohio. At least for now. And If I should visit NYC I'll give Bloomberg's food a taste and see if it is the shoe leather everyone tells me it will be. If the state of Florida wants its welfare recipients to piss in a cup, I don't give a shit... I mean piss. If I fall on hard times in Ohio the state nurse will not be outside my stall door while I provide her with a simple of my finest.

Now I get very upset when the central government in DC decides they know whats best and starts drawing up social contracts for all 300+ million of us. Some of their social contracts could force around 150 million unwilling participants to take part.

majorspark;787991 wrote:Now I get very upset when the central government in DC decides they know whats best and starts drawing up social contracts for all 300+ million of us. Some of their social contracts could force around 150 million unwilling participants to take part.

I completely agree with that. It should be almost summarily rejected because how do I even know Ohio's share is proportionate with CA? I shouldn't have to subsidize other parts of the country or even arguably cities on the other side of the state, I'm cool with a reasonable amount of subsidy but it's made even worse when you factor in govt waste and inefficiency.

I Wear Pants;787977 wrote:No, we rely on the FDA to ensure that labling and such is actually true and inspect for qualities.

Really, so when you buy food or aspirin you have no expectation that it's safe for consumption, only that it's properly labeled?

gut;788002 wrote:Really, so when you buy food or aspirin you have no expectation that it's safe for consumption, only that it's properly labeled?

No, I didn't say "we only". And by safe for consumption I mean "fits what we would call aspirin" or bacon or whatever before you jump to a conclusion about me being okay with the FDA making a ton of choices for us.

I Wear Pants;788013 wrote:No, I didn't say "we only". And by safe for consumption I mean "fits what we would call aspirin" or bacon or whatever before you jump to a conclusion about me being okay with the FDA making a ton of choices for us.

So as long as it's aspirin, you don't want the FDA "in you business"? Even if that aspirin contains a harmful ingredient, you want to be responsible for your choice? Would you like some more time to rethink your answer?

Simple question, do you or do you not want the FDA to remove harmful products from your choice set? Surely any true libertarian would eagerly roll the dice.

Stop asking if I'd like to rethink my answer. If I did I wouldn't post it or would edit it. Not because some dude on the internet thinks he's right about what I think.

Anyway, no I do not want them to necessarily remove harmful products. For instance, there are those that argue NSAIDs are harmful since their pain relieving properties aren't too strong and they can damage your body if abused. I wouldn't support removing products from the market on that basis. But if it says asprin on the bottle it better not have lead in it or something. Hopefully you'll get what I mean but I doubt it.

And when the fuck have I ever claimed to be even a fake libertarian let alone a "true" one?

ernest_t_bass;787487 wrote:DW - yes, I see how easy it is, but what if they refuse? Govt. going to let them go homeless?

See below. Plus, I'm pretty sure I addressed that in my post. You have a choice to make; either use and get nothing or don't use and get the assistance. Did you miss that part?

Bigred1995;787516 wrote:Short answer, yes! Kids are taken and placed in homes or with willing family members and parents are on their own to seek assistance anyway they can! If I fail a drug test, how do you think my employer would react if I asked, "Okay, but are you going to let me go homeless?"

Glory Days;787890 wrote:that works great for your PRIVATE company and for actions that effect other people directly. what happend to the government monitoring what i do in my own home and what about the slippery slope? whats next, people on welfare being told to not eat food with saturated fat or they wont get their money?


and yes, i am playing devil's advocate here.

See below

majorspark;787914 wrote:Yes. Don't shit yourself. If you are directly recieving funds or benefits from the state, the state can place any conditions it pleases on receipt of the funds or benefits. Believe or not there are people who would love to regulate individual food consumption and they exist in places of power in various levels of government.

majorspark;787991 wrote:I agree. I prefer that many of these social contracts occur at the lower levels of governance. State and local. Less people are forced to agree to the contract. I believe that is how our government was set up.

If mayor Bloomberg wants to ban trans fats in New York City big deal. I'll enjoy mine here in Ohio. At least for now. And If I should visit NYC I'll give Bloomberg's food a taste and see if it is the shoe leather everyone tells me it will be. If the state of Florida wants its welfare recipients to piss in a cup, I don't give a shit... I mean piss. If I fall on hard times in Ohio the state nurse will not be outside my stall door while I provide her with a simple of my finest.

Now I get very upset when the central government in DC decides they know whats best and starts drawing up social contracts for all 300+ million of us. Some of their social contracts could force around 150 million unwilling participants to take part.

I think this to be a very reasonable position. Although I tend to think, in our large integrated and industrial and telecommunications world, there be some contracts that might be of interest to be agreed to at the federal level....certainly less than more it would seem but I find this point to be rather sound.

Yeah the general point of majors post is very agreeable.

believer;787894 wrote:It's amazing what people can do when they're hungry enough.

Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?

I think you're being funny but you may have missed the moral Dickens was trying to convey.

BoatShoes;788301 wrote: Although I tend to think, in our large integrated and industrial and telecommunications world, there be some contracts that might be of interest to be agreed to at the federal level....certainly less than more it would seem but I find this point to be rather sound.

No doubt about it. I am not totally against social contracts at the federal level. The federal role was initially defined by the constitution's ratification in 1787. The amendment process gives the constitution unlimited flexibility to adjust to the times. Its a shame its fallen by the wayside.

I Wear Pants;788072 wrote: Anyway, no I do not want them to necessarily remove harmful products.

Good lord.

gut;788334 wrote:Good lord.

Elaborate. By "harmful products" I mean stuff like bacon wrapped in beef wrapped in bacon. That's not good for you but as long as it's actually bacon wrapped in bacon wrapped in beef wrapped in bacon and not bacon wrapped in beef wrapped in asbestos wrapped in Beggin' Strips I'd not like the FDA to block it.

FDA is to regulate standards of quality and hygeine with our foods and such, not really decide which foods are best.

By your very uninformative "good lord" post I assume you disagree and like your opinion on drugs would have the government remove anything you think is "bad" from the market. Because you know what's best.

I Wear Pants;788865 wrote: By your very uninformative "good lord" post I assume you disagree and like your opinion on drugs would have the government remove anything you think is "bad" from the market. Because you know what's best.

"FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/default.htm"

You appear uninformed again, which judging from you posts in the drug thread is unsurprising. Just because you don't rely on the FDA to determine if products are safe doesn't mean most people don't and that, in fact, it's part of their mission. It's not about removing what I think is unsafe, it's according to their guidelines. I'm not in position to make that judgement, which is why people rely on the FDA to make that determination. When there are literally a host of alternatives to choose from, there's no reason for a harmful or potentially dangerous product to be on the shelf, and when that's known beforehand it never gets approved in the first place. To argue otherwise is irrational, irresponsible, and unrealistic.

Then we disagree on the definition of their intended purpose.

So what other products should be removed from shelves then? I'm assuming you'd take all snack cakes, candies, etc off the shelf as there are literally a host of alternatives. Right?

You're starting to get as bad as isadore with your "anyone who disagrees is irrational, irresponsible, and unrealistic" crap.