About time someone brought this about

[Tikker]

But I guess because she spends 25 bucks on pot once in a while in her 70 hour work weeks she doesn't deserve those food stamps to make sure her child is cared for.

correct

[ClakarEQ]

There is also an assumption that if this were to be enacted that folks wouldn't trick the system, like bring their kids urine.

You've not been tested in a long time, have you?

Actually I was tested less than 2 months ago, and your point is, valueless poster?

But I guess because she spends 25 bucks on pot once in a while in her 70 hour work weeks she doesn't deserve those food stamps to make sure her child is cared for.

correct

Sorry brother from another mother (or country in this case). Pot is legal in Alaska, just like booze and smokes. But since you didn't put your response in to any context, I don't know if this is some personal issue of yours against pot and its legal standing. Since we all know where you stand on pot :p

[brinstar]

clak we don't use OTC drug tests that cost >$20 a pop

we are the gov't, we use real pro shit, we get it straight from the labs, no warehousing or consumer retail overhead

whenever my boss has to present figures to his boss, he comes to me to run them-- so trust me, my numbers are pretty accurate

[ClakarEQ]

Ok fair enough. I do see where this has "good" but the overall outcome and where this can lead is what worries me. Wasn't there a movie along the lines of something like this. I forget who is in it, I want to say Gatica(sp)? Lord I don't recall the female stars name either, she was in kill bill, geesh.

My issue is where would it stop. You need to get blood work done so we know those collecting unemployment are "clean". You need to get blood work done to collect social security because we don't want that money funding drug lords, or terrorists.

While the intent I'm confident is in the right place, the practice of something like this, puts a foundation in place that gets built upon. I take this similar to the patriot act, but in this case, when is the GOV's right to know, enough? You also know how easy it is to trick urine tests, not only can you use someone else's urine, there are plenty of methods to successfully purge oneself of the longest lasting narcotic, that being pot. Sure I'm more defensive on the pot issue since I'm a casual user but it does frustrate me that out of the drugs here, my opinion is, meth>crack>alcohol>pot. Yet out of those 4, pot is the one that sticks around for 30 days, IIRC the others are 5 days or less.

So the question is, who are you trying to stop here? The guy who smokes pot, or the crack heads, etc? I'm asking this because I've never heard of folks that steal for pot. I've heard lots about how folks steal for coke, crack, meth, etc. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Now if you say, the drug doesn't matter, if you collect unemployment, welfare, etc then no drug is acceptable. That is where I chime in with my sarcasm and say, no drugs mean NO DRUGS, nothing, no painkillers, no over the counter stuff, I mean you know that shit isn't cheap. For two boxes of Sudafed you can buy several grams of pot.

[Jay]

But I guess because she spends 25 bucks on pot once in a while in her 70 hour work weeks she doesn't deserve those food stamps to make sure her child is cared for.

correct

I think this is like the 4th or 5th time I'm agreeing with Harrison in a row. It's scary.

25 bucks can get you far if you budget. That's roughly 22 dollar menu items (after tax), 55 Tina's burritos (40 cents each, sometimes 3 for a dollar), 192 bags of Ramen noodles (10 cents + tax per bag if you buy in quantity), 80 Cup O' Noodles (4 for a dollar), 8 gallons of milk (3 bucks a gallon), etc etc. The list goes on.

I personally have nothing against recreational pot smoking. I've done it before, I know people who are well adjusted and responsible people that smoke plenty. All of those people have another thing in common. They view pot as a luxury, not a necessity. When you're broke, struggling and having a hard time raising a child or taking care of yourself, you cut off luxuries. Cancel that WoW acct, stop buying pot, cancel your HBO, etc. Yes, people need entertainment and things to get by w/o going mad but if not having 25-50 bucks of pot is enough to cause that then she's an unfit mother. There's ways to relax for free. There's ways to entertain yourself for cheap. Spending any money on pot to "relax" when you are struggling can't be argued for.

[Haylo]

I don't have a problem with them requiring drug tests for welfare, but not for unemployment. People are paying into that and when they need it, it should be available, not with strings.

As far as people on welfare being able to choose what to do with the cash, I strongly disagree. They are getting that money/food stamps (Here it's all on a card so it's really hard to defraud the system and use it elsewhere) to care for their family. They should absolutely not be able to take $25 or however much and spend it on pot because they like a little smoke here and there. Use your own money for that not my taxes. I feel strongly about this because I work in an inner city school where I see the parents of these kids come in dressed in designer clothes and sporting all sorts of shit, but their kids don't eat. It pisses me off.

Also, with $25, you can feed your family for a week if you shop at the right spots. I don't know about other places but the "Dollar Tree" stores here carry just about any food item you can find in a grocery store (not fresh meats). Is it really better to spend that cash on a drug to relieve some stress, or put it to the use it's intended for.

[Gypsiyee]

In case it wasn't positively clear, she doesn't use taxpayer dollars on her once in a while 25 dollars of recreation. She works 70 hours a week, for crying out loud. She doesn't collect welfare - the only thing she has is food stamps. She has absolutely no other luxuries, and considers herself lucky when she is able to pay all the bills, buy all the groceries, get stuff for Hunter, and have a tiny bit left over for herself.

To call her an unfit mother is pretty laughable - my sister is far from perfect and has a lot of misgivings, but a bad mother is one thing she isn't. I guarantee you that she works harder and does more meaningful work than 90% of this board - to pass judgment on her and liken her an addict or a bad mother for wanting some piece of herself in her very rare free time is absurd.

Buying a book, getting a movie - unless that 1 rental or 1 book is going to last you an entire month or two, that builds up to that 25 bucks really quick. And what do you mean by "she's doing it wrong" Harrison? Because you're some sort of huge life success? Give me a break. You're a self righteous self proclaimed genius who couldn't make anything of himself so you joined the forces because it was the only option for your completely failed life, and now you post about your new-found career and what a military expert you are in just about every single post just so people tell you how noble you are. Fuck you, you pompous twit. She's worked every day since she was 15, worked her way through college graduating with honors and racked up a ton of debt doing so and is in a career that pays shit because she wants to help people and it's a job that few people are willing to do because it's so difficult and pays so little. And somehow, your lazy ass finally falling into the only career that would take you after years of making excuse after excuse as to why you couldn't work or go to school makes you better and gives you any right to say someone else is doing it wrong? You're a joke.

[ClakarEQ]

I pretty much agree with Jay, my only real beef is I don't think the GOV should force it's populace to get drug tests in order to get GOV benefits. My primary reason for this is the foundation it puts in place IMO is very dangerous and somewhat contradictory of a free society that we are suppose to be.

[Evermore]

Free societies are not "free".

[Gypsiyee]

There's ways to relax for free. There's ways to entertain yourself for cheap. Spending any money on pot to "relax" when you are struggling can't be argued for.

I agree for the most part. it's not what I would personally spend my money on if I was in the situation, but most anyone would have *some* small money here and there that they would spend on something for themselves or they'd go nuts. my entire point was that there's holes in the issue, and it's a hypocritical stance to say yes, go ahead and buy that bottle of captain or that fast food meal or that pack of smokes for yourself but something minor as pot is completely deplorable and unacceptable. yeah, it's against the law, I get that, but the only reason it's coming up here is because it's something they can test for, not because it's morally reprehensible to spend a dime on yourself when you have any sort of government aid.

I'm just as opposed as you are to people who abuse the system. My sister isn't one of them. you have to remember that I see exactly how my sister lives. She doesn't live some crazy exotic life partying hard and getting high all the time - she lives very modestly. I hate the people who have luxury cars and clothes with their kids in rags too, it's not her. her anxiety and depression meds are pretty damned expensive and she can't always afford them, and while I'm not a big pot fan, if it's something she does once in a while that helps keep her grounded in a life that's become pretty unbearable, I'm not about to tell her how selfish she is for it.

[Tikker]

In case it wasn't positively clear, she doesn't use taxpayer dollars on her once in a while 25 dollars of recreation. She works 70 hours a week, for crying out loud. She doesn't collect welfare - the only thing she has is food stamps. She has absolutely no other luxuries, and considers herself lucky when she is able to pay all the bills, buy all the groceries, get stuff for Hunter, and have a tiny bit left over for herself.

she shouldn't need food stamps then if she can afford to blow 25 bucks on pot

simple as that

so in essence she is using taxpayer money on pot

[Gypsiyee]

so then, you're saying should you ever fall on hard times and need assistance, all other life will cease to exist - you'll never eat anything but what you absolutely have to, you won't partake in any sort of entertainment at all, including giving up your internet, and you'll go from work to home to work to home and that will be the definition of your life. any free time you get will be spent walking/jogging or sitting at home.

being as she's worked for 15 years, and 2 jobs for a lot of it, I think she's paid enough into the program to justify being able to use it for a couple months while she gets back on her feet without being told she's expected to live as if she's some huge fuckup who should be in a high security prison.

jesus, when you work you pay your taxes into these programs. it's not just someone else's money - you've put into it too. she's still actively paying taxes, so she's in essence also still paying for the assistance she's getting. you want to gripe about people who don't work and are decked out in 200 dollar shoes and iphones and drive a benz still worrying about their government cheese, fine. someone working more than full time who's still paying taxes and lives incredibly modestly isn't really the same thing.

it baffles me that no one seems to care about buying liquor or restaurant food or cigarettes or other forms of 'luxury' - if it's a matter of what you can afford, why is the gripe only with pot? all of the above are far more expensive over the course of time.

[ClakarEQ]

Gyps actually spawned a new thought for me. Perhaps instead of testing for drugs they should take the approach of what you put in, using some formula, is what you get out and if you need to get more out than you put in, then you're subjected to more scrutiny.

TIk I think the issue here is not everyone that wants hand outs has been a worthless lump of flesh the entire time. I mean if I lost my job, and over the past 25 years, been putting in thousands upon thousands of dollars into the system that is in part designed to help me when I need it, why shouldn't I be able to draw on that?

EDIT

Tikker, if you replaced "pot" with "any non-food essential", would you still make that statement? I mean to move this away from pot so folks aren't hung up on that, and to confirm it isn't about pot but it is about "any non-food essential" you're taking issue with, yes?

[Harrison]

it baffles me that no one seems to care about buying liquor or restaurant food or cigarettes or other forms of 'luxury' - if it's a matter of what you can afford, why is the gripe only with pot? all of the above are far more expensive over the course of time.

No, I am pretty sure we've also included liquor and cigarettes.

[Tikker]

so then, you're saying should you ever fall on hard times and need assistance, all other life will cease to exist -

it baffles me that no one seems to care about buying liquor or restaurant food or cigarettes or other forms of 'luxury' - if it's a matter of what you can afford, why is the gripe only with pot? all of the above are far more expensive over the course of time.

the point is that while you're sucking at the teat of the social assistance you shouldn't be doing anything that could be tagged as a luxury

and yes that would include drugs, booze, cigarettes, eating out etc etc


I honestly don't give a shit how you want to try and justify it, but that's just crap

[Drem]

i totally agree. if you're poor, earn more money. if you can't earn more money, don't spend it on stuff that doesn't last. i learned that from experience. there's so much to do that doesn't cost anything /shrug

[Narrock]

Thread re-direct:

Every employer in America should be forced to drug-test their employees, and fire anybody who tests positive for ANY drug, including THC. I hate druggies.

[Arlos]

And I don't even begin to see how what someone does for recreation in the privacy of their own homes should matter to anyone, regardless of if it's alcohol, weed, etc. that they use. (insert usual caveat of needing to take care of their responsibilities first, obviously. But people like my friend, who earns > 100k a year as a Applications Engineer and owns his own house here in the bay area obviously has his bills met and can afford it, so who cares?)

Fortunately to my way of thinking, the discussion seems to be centering far more on legalization, at least of marijuana, than it does on stricter punishment and policing. Policing and punishment didn't work for Alcohol in the 20s, I dunno why anyone thinks it should work any better for any other substance that people want to consume.

The whole puritanical streak this country still hasn't gotten rid of really bugs me, actually. I read somewhere a great definition of puritanism: "The abject fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time".

-Arlos

[brinstar]

people like my friend, who earns > 100k a year as a Applications Engineer and owns his own house here in the bay area obviously has his bills met and can afford it, so who cares?

that's precisely why i can get behind this legislation

i don't give a crap whether your stable, employed friend chooses to toke a little herb with his surplus money

because it's not the stable, employed, responsible people this law is going after

it's going after those who buy drugs (and, as has been said above, other luxuries) with money given to them for the singular purpose of surviving

the difference between enforcing this luxury-based law on drugs and not on other unnecessary luxuries, i think (and would hope), is based solely on drugs' illegality

[Harrison]

I think it should extend to people living in assisted housing too.

Fuck you if you live in the projects with a $20,000 car.

[Arlos]

Brin, I was talking more about Mindia's comment about calling for drug tests for anyone and everyone than anything else.

-Arlos

[brinstar]

oh lol

everyone? what a retard

[Narrock]

oh lol

everyone? what a retard

Yes, you are.

[Lueyen]

Drug testing for Unemployment Benefits - stupid, unnecessary and unfair. Stupid and unnecessary because: For the vast majority, by virtue of the fact that they've maintained a job they are unlikely to be a hardcore addict, and will be cognizant of the fact that prospective employers may require drug testing. Unemployment benefits do not last forever, and so the incentive is there to stay clean until they are off the program. Unfair because: the vast majority paid into it, and the vast majority will be cut off of it before they every use the amount they have paid in. Many if not all states list unemployment deductions from your pay as some type of insurance. This would set a precedence for private sector insurance companies, that it's okay to refuse to pay out benefits if there is any indication of criminal activity even if it's unrelated.

Drug testing for welfare benefits - fair, reasonable and prudent. Where do you draw the line as regards to entertainment and luxury on tax payers dollar? Quite simply at legality. If you issue is then with those receiving welfare benefits smoking, drinking and eating out then quite simply your issue is with how much help they are receiving, and how it is given. The public interest would be better served by moving welfare benefits such as food stamps to a debit card system, where ID is checked. The taxpayer would be better served despite the additional expense as it would be offset by a savings from abuse. I'm including in this free state ID if needed. When you can't trade your food stamps for cash abuse will go down. If people are living high on the hog at tax payer expense then it's an issue of how people are qualified and for how much assistance they qualify. You'll never completely rid the system of abuse, but you can shore it up to minimize it.