This, my friends, is the core of the modern Republican perspective.
Basically, it’s not fair that I should have to help people who are lazier/stupider/weaker/more sinful/poorer than me. I will fight tooth and nail for the knowledge that none of those less-deserving people get any of my hard-earned and obviously-deserved money. Even if it costs me more money. Because then I can sleep soundly knowing that the weaker people out there are getting what they deserve. And that’s what’s most important.
Are you asking if people on welfare should never be allowed to have a drink? Because it certainly sounds like you do, and it does seem to be the consequence of your proposal.
I’m still trying to get my head around the idea that people on welfare should never be allowed to enjoy themselves, because… well, why is that exactly? Are miserable people so much more worthy of welfare than people who might enjoy themselves once in a while when they’re already in a shitty situation?
This, my friends, is the core of the modern Democratic perspective: we will fight tooth and nail to take away your money and give it to folks who use drugs and don’t work – because then we can sleep soundly, knowing that people who obey the law and work for a living are no longer getting what they deserve.
That’s a winning slogan if ever I heard one!
Bolding mine. I must understand? Hmm, well I might if the right wing wasn’t trying their best to de-fund entities like Planned Parenthood that help provide affordable contraception.
Drug testing as described by the OP isn’t a way of being fiscally responsible. It’s a way of further humiliating people when they’re already down for puritanical reasons.
Well if they don’t want treatment and they are still taking drugs then maybe they shouldn’t be receiving government money,
The death penalty doesn’t have the state killpeople it doesn’t like only murderers, traitors, spies, and deserters.
In such case I support the use of foodstamps/medicaid/ and whatever other welfare programs that are available.
Except when they smoke the occasional joint or have a beer, or am I misrepresenting your position?
No if they’re alcoholics or drug addicts not occasional users.
Regardless of the fact that many people can be fairly productive members of society when addicted, how does your mandatory screening proposal distinguish between the occasional users and addicts?
First I think we should test Lawyers and Judges, and Politicians and lawmakers, including screening for alcohol and prescription drugs. I would prioritize that above welfare recipients. Let me know how that goes.
This ridiculous proposition reveals how Fundamental Christianity resembles Fundamental Islam in it’s barbarism. Who is really surprised they are only one step apart, after all?
Curtis you never seem to tire of trying to legislate morality, (yours of course). One would almost think you’d never read history.
I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page of a separate point: if the OP wants, in private life, to donate money only to those who abstain from pot and booze – or who indulge in one but not the other – we’re all okay with that, right? As a free citizen with his own hard-earned cash to distribute as he sees fit, he can give only to people he believes are worth it?
Well, I would think it’s kinda stupid, but sure he’s free to do so.
TEVYE: And Reb Nachum, the beggar…
NACHUM: Alms for the poor… alms for the poor…
LAZAR WOLF: Here you are, Reb Nachum. One kopec.
NACHUM: One kopec? Last week you gave me two kopecs!
LAZAR WOLF: Well, I had a bad week.
NACHUM: So? Because you had a bad week, I should suffer?
I have more of a problem with the claim that recipients are OWED society’s largess than with the claim that giving it is wise. In other words, if you come along and say, “Paying benefits has the following good results for society, and drug testing costs more than the benefits saved will be,” then that makes sense to me.
If you say that because they are poor and needy, we as a secular society MUST, as a matter of obligation, give up money to them, I object.
Strenuously.
Absolutely no argument from me.
My concern here is that lots of members of society benefit from government programs and largess. But the only ones being asked to submit to morals-based screening are the very poor. Why not ask the same of anyone getting college loans, mortgage tax exemption, or farm subsidies?
I do not advocate legislating morality by for example banning adulterous sex. But this is not legislating morality. It is simply not giving taxpayer to those who if they use them will just use it to hurt themselves.
:dubious: Drug dependency must start with a person making a choice. Diabetes not so much.
Well, that’s what I came along and said while providing facts with cites of such a law implemented in the real world. But I haven’t seen any of those who support drug testing of welfare recipients acknowledge those facts whatsoever.
I really think a lot of people don’t realize how little money welfare recipients receive, and how few welfare recipients there actually are.
I don’t have a problem with that… provided, again, that the savings outstrip the cost of the program.
I am sure there are drug-taking homeowners and farmers, but I suspect (without proof) that their numbers are proportionally small.
As to college loans… there you might have something.
I acknowledge them. 
Actually, I’m not so much a supporter as I am not an opponent of the plan, assuming the issues you raise are dealt with.
When we saved the bankers with the TARP program, we should have drug tested the whole lot. I bet you would be surprised how many drug users get our tax money. But they would strenuously object. It would infringe of their rights of privacy. But the poor. Screw them. make them grovel.
I have no objection to this plan.
But I would point out that virtually all TARP funds have been repaid. Not sure if that makes a difference in the calculations, but we don’t require welfare recipients to repay what we give them.