• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Drug Testing for Public Assistance

his "work requirement" is talking about digging ditches, not getting a job.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
The i live in X and there are no jobs or no jobs that fit my skill Y is a poor argument and bad way to make policy. In catering to this you might as well support Trump and his plans for more coal!!! If you need to move to support your family or get a job you move. Plenty of people that are educated and considered successful do it all the time. Staying where there is no jobs makes no sense.
Click to expand...

yeah its super easy for low income people to move.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
The i live in X and there are no jobs or no jobs that fit my skill Y is a poor argument and bad way to make policy. In catering to this you might as well support Trump and his plans for more coal!!! If you need to move to support your family or get a job you move. Plenty of people that are educated and considered successful do it all the time. Staying where there is no jobs makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Who is paying for the move?
 
Didn't click on the link above about scarcity, so it may touch on this, but if you're interested in this area then I highly recommend "Scarcity: Why having so little means so much" by Sendhil Mullainathan. Talks about a lot of the issues being discussed here and quite well IMO.
 
06deacon said:
his "work requirement" is talking about digging ditches, not getting a job.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the ditches, I care about the habits of going to work. When our system provides subsistence benefits, those muscles (and yes, Leebs, expectations atrophy).
 
lbE08 said:
HOW. WHO RUNS THE PROGRAM. WHO ELSE NEEDS TO BE ON BOARD TO MAKE THIS WORK.

No, I don't believe they should be REQUIRED to work. Expectations and requirements are two separate things. I would expect that a person would eventually work, yes, but if they don't currently work that doesn't preclude them from receiving assistance for basic necessities.
I do believe that specific unemployment benefits should require proof that the individual is actively looking for work, though, as is already required.
Click to expand...

We've spent 25T on entitlement programs. It's interesting that this moment makes us suddenly cost conscious. As though another installment of next year's entitlement distribution is suddenly free and comes at no cost, when we don't set conditions that help people migrate off of these programs.
 
jhmd2000 said:
We've spent 25T on entitlement programs. It's interesting that this moment makes us suddenly cost conscious. As though another installment of next year's entitlement distribution is suddenly free and comes at no cost, when we don't set conditions that help people migrate off of these programs.
Click to expand...

but drug testing, which is what this thread is about, does not do that either.
 
vadimivich said:
BUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WORK THEIR WAY BACK? I have asked you this in multiple threads now, and you refuse to answer. You will avoid, deflect or simply refuse to answer as if they will just go away. What do you, personally, feel should happen to them? Are you ok with them just dying? And if you, personally, are not ok with them dying then you have to have a plan for these most fucked up of fuck ups.

So here, I'll make it even more simple - do you think a non-criminal member of our society should be allowed to die because they do not work or do not meet other conditions to stay in the safety net (whatever private or public form it takes)?
Click to expand...

vadimivich said:
And that's a YES or NO question. No need to type any more words than that. Once you establish your position there, we can continue the conversation with that as a basis (a conversation I find quite interesting, btw).
Click to expand...

 
I would say the inability to move should be a complete non starter in discussion. You wonder why you can't have a discussion with conservatives where so far we have concluded that entire towns should be rebuilt and bailed out to accommodate some people that can't move. It's a completely asinine concept. I am a really good ski instructor, it really sucks I live in Miami but I guess that's life, hope a ski resort opens here.
 
lbE08 said:
but drug testing, which is what this thread is about, does not do that either.
Click to expand...

The private sector employment market is clamoring for people who abuse drugs? Thanks for the update.
 
jhmd2000 said:
The private sector employment market is clamoring for people who abuse drugs? Thanks for the update.
Click to expand...

Your argument "technique" is killing me. This type of stupid response is the reason we can't have real discussions about things.

Nearly 60% of state and federal assistance goes to WORKING families, so your argument that drug testing will somehow set people up for success because it will help them attain private sector employment (based on your quoted statement here) is invalid. You're also making a huge leap to assume that someone who fails a drug test is necessarily abusing drugs. If the tests are catching people smoking weed, WGAF. If you're testing people to see if they need additional assistance for harder substance abuse, that's a different case all together, and still wouldn't result in the individual losing any assistance they might currently receive.
 
lbE08 said:
Your argument "technique" is killing me. This type of stupid response is the reason we can't have real discussions about things.

Nearly 60% of state and federal assistance goes to WORKING families, so your argument that drug testing will somehow set people up for success because it will help them attain private sector employment (based on your quoted statement here) is invalid. You're also making a huge leap to assume that someone who fails a drug test is necessarily abusing drugs. If the tests are catching people smoking weed, WGAF. If you're testing people to see if they need additional assistance for harder substance abuse, that's a different case all together, and still wouldn't result in the individual losing any assistance they might currently receive.
Click to expand...

You do. You gaf. I will bet you that when it comes to your kids, no chance leebs settles for this "there is no nexus" talking point.

For me to believe your argument, I have to believe that you believe it. I am not there.
 
jhmd2000 said:
You do. You gaf. I will bet you that when it comes to your kids, no chance leebs settles for this "there is no nexus" talking point.

For me to believe your argument, I have to believe that you believe it. I am not there.
Click to expand...

I care more if the person smokes cigarettes than weed, honestly, and weed is legal in Oregon so what... how does that affect your testing? Someone could receive state benefits but no federal benefits? and as for people taking drug tests that come up positive for something like heroin or other opioids for which they're not prescribed, I would rather see that person get MORE help.

ETA: and of course I'll talk to my kids about drugs and their effects and everything else... but they'll be having those conversations with full bellies and a roof over their heads and shoes that fit, knowing they have the option and opportunity for whatever educational experience they want to pursue. To even make that proclamation as a serious/salient counterargument is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
You do. You gaf. I will bet you that when it comes to your kids, no chance leebs settles for this "there is no nexus" talking point.

For me to believe your argument, I have to believe that you believe it. I am not there.
Click to expand...

Yeah well you're not going to throw your kids out on their ass if they try drugs either
 
lbE08 said:
I care more if the person smokes cigarettes than weed, honestly, and weed is legal in Oregon so what... how does that affect your testing? Someone could receive state benefits but no federal benefits? and as for people taking drug tests that come up positive for something like heroin or other opioids for which they're not prescribed, I would rather see that person get MORE help.

ETA: and of course I'll talk to my kids about drugs and their effects and everything else... but they'll be having those conversations with full bellies and a roof over their heads and shoes that fit, knowing they have the option and opportunity for whatever educational experience they want to pursue. To even make that proclamation as a serious/salient counterargument is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You should be able to entertain the notion of valuable lessons of life applying to other people's children, too. It is not ridiculous to want them to also avoid self-disqualifying behavior.
 
06deacon said:
Yeah well you're not going to throw your kids out on their ass if they try drugs either
Click to expand...

Sure, but I haven't proposed throwing any one else out either.

But at the same time, I might tell my kids the truth about bad choices leading to bad outcomes, and that behaviors that hurt them will in fact hurt them. According to Sig, the only explanation is a sadistic desire to punish my own children.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the folks so fortunate to receive benefits in your system will enjoy the ignorant paternalistic life lessons as well.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Sure, but I haven't proposed throwing any one else out either.

But at the same time, I might tell my kids the truth about bad choices leading to bad outcomes, and that behaviors that hurt them will in fact hurt them. According to Sig, the only explanation is a sadistic desire to punish my own children.
Click to expand...

If you're not throwing anyone out, what are the "bad outcomes" and "hurt" you're suggesting they'll experience? Day old bagels?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top