Hey John Carney!…Pee in a cup, it isn’t just for the poor anymore
The bill came in response to one filed last month by Republicans, who want the state to drug-test parents who apply for federal financial assistance. Holcomb, who represents parts of north DeKalb County, tweeted that “if required for the poor, we [lawmakers] need to do it, too.”
and just yesterday…
TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Rick Scott and his drug-testing policy became the unwitting target of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show on Wednesday as a reporter for the show broke into budget news conference and asked the governor to “pee in a cup.’’
“You’ve benefited from hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars over the years, so would you be willing to pee into this cup to prove to Florida taxpayers that you’re not on drugs?’’
Making Republicans look like the ridiculous asses that they are is becoming all the rage. I put John Carney’s name in the headline of this post, because I know someone in his office is tasked with reading this blog, and I’d like TEAM CARNEY to know that making Republicans look like the ridiculous asses that they are is becoming all the rage. Look into it.
Im not entirely opposed to some of the “drug test for U.I” legislation being introduced.
BY NO MEANS do i think unemployed are just a bunch of lazy pot-heads….. i know lots of lazy pot-heads who make a ton of money in a legit line of work. I DO however think that if someone needs assistance while they look for a job, we should make sure it is going to someone looking for a job.
The absence of drugs doesnt PROVE that is what they are doing, but it at the very least can show a person is willing to hold off until they get their life sorted out. What would compliment this perfectly? legalizing marijuana. NOW you are only making sure coke heads and junkies aren’t trying to get U.I
And here I thought you liked due process.
you wouldn’t be prosecuted for failing the test (in my magic land thought up scenario that will never happen). you would simply be denied Unemployment Insurance. Id be all for also offering rehab assistance to people who need it to clean up, so they can get their life back on track. Im willing to bet people who would need to go on UI are disciplined enough to lay off for a while if it means income.
think about how that would damage the RWNJ attack line about unemployed people.. suddenly hard data shows they are lying about yet something else in order to let poor people starve.
Yeah, so much for probable cause.
So should the elderly have to get tested if we are going to give them Social Security?
Oh, and the data already show that they are lying.
And for the record, in Florida, the drug tests are paid for by the person seeking aid. They get reimbursed if they pass.
Could I just pee on Rick Scott instead?
you guys are funny.
Why is it so hard to comprehend that i DONT think a significant percentage of U.I beneficiaries are wasting time using drugs, yet i still want to make sure the money goes to people who need it? It’s the public’s money.
Do i think people should be drug tested for a hopeful public option health insurance? NOPE.
U.I is different. “i don’t have a job i need help”….. the assumption is that those people are trying hard ot get work… some of the busiest people i know are unemployed. most of them wouldn’t have a problem doing this tomorrow.. the rest may need a week or 2. But please, im open to hearing a ration, non-insult-laced explanation why paying for someone’s self destructive, and possibly dangerous to others…. let’s say meth addiction is in the public interest, or a good cause for Progressives.
I never said we should use the florida model. that is like advocating for universal health insurance and being told “well it SUCKS in England”.
I’m saying a voluntary decision to use illegal drugs (which im fine with) should not be enabled by the public. no one is getting arrested, no one s being hauled off. they are simply being denied assistance until they can pass the test…. and most drugs only take a few days to clear your “pee track” not hair samples, not LPs, just good old desert Brita.
I love ya, Ben, but you are way off base on this one.
Geezer, if you want to punish Rick Scott, don’t pee on him. He’s into water sports, don’t ya know.
why? c’mon, you know im one to take reasonable objections to my ideas and acknowledge a good point…. even commit the ultimate sin of political blogging and admit i was wrong….. i dont accept “you’re wrong” though as a reasonable point.
Let me ask you this, Ben. Should the unemployed be subject to a search of their homes to ensure that they aren’t using drugs, or harboring criminals, or engaged in terrorism?
Also, how about social security recipients?
If we are going to require UI beneficiaries to pee in a cup because drug use can be illegal, then let’s also require them to have a GPS tracking system installed in their cars to ensure that they are not illegally exceeding the speed limit and that they actually drive to the businesses they claim they submitted job applications to. Then let’s invent other tests to detect illegal behavior from them on the grounds that government assistance gives society sanction to erode a beneficiary’s privacy rights and presumption of innocence.
Perhaps we could test the elderly/poor before they receive medicare/medicaid?
We could even test kids applying for student loans.
nope, nope, and nope. and nope.
Im talking about a very specific thing here. urine tests (which only pick up recent activity) to make sure the people who realy need help are doing their part and trying. I want a socialistic society where we all take care of each other as much as anyone, but it also require civic responsibility on the individual’s part.
If i find myself in a position (again) where i need U.I, and thus, help from my community, im going to do my part by focusing entirely on getting a job so i can participate in society again… and read this part please… JUST LIKE i think the vast majority of the unemployed would/currently do. Also remember i suggested to accompany this, there should be more help for people addicted to hard drugs, they would be totally confidential, results would be expunged right away, and people would have the opportunity to try again with clean pee.
I
pandora, those ideas are terrible and draconian. (but you know that 🙂 ) are there really that many “the world and all it’s issues can only be viewed as all or nothing” people here? Cant we for once try and focus on the very specific idea i brought up?
LOL.. Ha, ha.. You know I actually woke up this morning thinking it’s about time someone does a piece on how the actions of Republicans, move for move, correspond exactly to those actions of people addicted to crack…
But I see here, The Daily Show has already made the connection…
( I haven’t seen the clip, but he refused to take the challenge, right?)
There you have it, line 6 in the Republican Handbook: Probable Cause……
i forgot the rule about thinking up every single wildly rhetorical objection anyone might possibly have with any aspect of what you say and include a response. my fault.
Ben – what if you are looking for a job that doesn’t require drug testing (a waiter or dishwasher or politician). What does drug testing do for them? Also, it doesn’t actually matter what you think is reasonable. It is a search being conducted without probable cause. Full stop.
And why in the world do you think that the results would be confidential?
Just like social security, the work of the beneficiaries has paid for the insurance. So why should they be punished (by an illegal search) after they have already paid for the insurance. Should your car insurance company be allowed to test you for evidence of drug use in the recent past if you have an accident (let’s assume that the cops on the scene already confirmed that you weren’t under the influence at the time)?
first of all, lots of occupations that pay you drug test. if you fail that test, it is treated with doctor patient confidentiality. you cant be prosecuted even if your pee would be too much for Keef to handle. Id be in favor of treating this the same way. along with your application for U.I you produce clean drug test results. You’d only need to do it once.
I think a lot of you would have a different opinion about monitoring the practices of private companies who seek government assistance. Id agree with those monitoring practices. I would also point out that when you collect U.I, you get a lot more than you paid in. Most of it is from what other’s have paid. I have no objection that that. I have no Objection to that.
” BEN YOU RWNJ ASS FACE! I guess you think that people should only get the small amount they pay in and when they run out, the starve” ~ says the person who didn’t read what I wrote
No, person who didnt read what i wrote. i think any system in our society where the majority makes sure no one or no one group falls through the cracks is great…. but the people receiving the help… regardless of how they got there, owe it to society to make the best of the help they are getting.
It should be acceptable to require urinary testing into plastic cups at large events, as long as everyone attending was aware, and as long as the testing was universal. However, if such a program were ever mandated into law, I would be very hesitant over attending large events in the nature of: say Oktoberfest.
“i’m g oing to do my part by focusing entirely on getting a job so i can partcipate in society again…” Interesting perspective. Unemployment means not participating in society; employment means participating in society. Apparently, not participating in society (I.e. unemployment) means you lose your rights as well like the right of privacy. Let’s also allow the police to perform spontaneous and warrantless searches of the unemployed so we can see if they are drug dealing and don’t need UI.
socialistic ben is being the devil’s barrister.
So Ben – if I understand your point, you think that if someone uses pot, they aren’t trying to get back into the workforce? I don’t smoke pot, or use any mind-altering substances (except alcohol) but I would imagine that some people might smoke pot at the end of the day, rather than waking and baking. So would someone who smoked a joint in the evening after a day out on interviews or filling out applications be a threat to civil society?
I think any such proposal to tie the receipt of benefits to drug use testing is probably not viable, at least in part due to the cost of administring such a program. Employeers pay for drug testing for new employees as a cost of doing business so they do not find themselves with a workforce comprised of drug users. But who would pay for such a program for the state or federal government? Economically it does not make sense. However, as socialistic ben pointed out, there is a civic responsibility question as well. Maybe there is data that suggests a good portion of those collecting benefits are drug users. I wonder if that should make a difference? If otherwise qualified, would drug use be a disqualifier for benefits? Do the benefits come with strings? Should they?
I used to work in DC. Every day I would walk down L’Enfant Promenade and a panhandler would be there asking everyone if they could spare any change. I used to put something in his plastic cup. Not all the time, but sometimes. And I used to ask myself, whether I was doing good or doing harm? I know he was using the money he received to buy either alcohol or drugs (probably alcohol) and I know that as long as we was able to get something from passerby he was incentivized to continue that instead of doing something else with his life. But I gave him money, which allowed him continue his substance abuse (I am sure sometimes he bought food). What if I was doing more harm than good? I’ll never know, but I hate not knowing.
@Ben – actually I agree with you
here is LG’s fallacy – one does not need probable cause to need to pee in a cup WHEN YOU ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING _ BECAUSE YOU ARE CONSENTING TO IT
therefore, it is NOT a violation
case in point – cop stops your car – he smells pot and asks you if you have pot in the car – you say no, he ssays :can I search your car” you sau yes – OK – you have consented to the search ero no search warrent based on PROBABLE cause is needed.
So, you want UI – to get it the deal is you are drug free, you sign a sheet that says to prove eligibility you consent to a pee test – CONSENT
when you apply for a drivers license you certify /prove you are of age and elibible
when you allpy for medicais, you fill out a financial form the certifies you meet the requirements – if they think you dont, the can ask for proof, or if there suspect fraud they can investigate
you are mixing up probable cause to get a search warrent (freedom from illeage search and seizure) with CONSENT!!
Ben is spot on!
and I wish pot was legal and alcohol not – but it is what it is – and as long as pot is criminal, they can ask – you dont have to consent – but then you are waiving away your aid too
Pandora – did you fill out the FASFA form – its all about your finances – your income has to meet certian guidelines – if you make oodles of money, you know your kids dont qualify so you dont apply for it (unless you are crooked)
No one is bending your arm into taking the aid – but in order to get it, you must meet certian criteria
same with this
and im with BEN – i DO NOT think the unemployed are lazy pot smokers either – but when ones asks for something, and there are strings attached, and you dont like the srtings – then DONT ask!
Choice is yours
Dave, if he bought himself some alcohol, so what? I have trouble imagining someone in that state “doing something else” with their life. Seems pretty rock bottom to me.
Of course, over at Delaware Politics they’d say he had it good. Here’s my take… if I’m not willing to trade my lifestyle for theirs, then I want to be generous.
dana, you jumped right into rhetorical hyperbole by taking my suggestion and deliberately drawing out to a conclusion i stressed wasnt part of my suggestion. first of all, i know you’re better than that. second, I wont respond until you go after my very specific idea.
LG, my view on recreational drugs is just that. recreation. Why is it progressive and fine ot say that we all need to pay for each other’s health care…. something i passionately agree with, so none of that “i guess SB wants us all to die quicker” wackieness…. but it’s not ok to ask the individual to give back to society…. in the form of NOT doing debilitating drugs…. LG, i also said in my initial post that pot should be legal, so in this case, it would be exempt.
let me recap my idea.
*confidential drug testing to receive unemployment insurance…
*. paid for by the state, and results would only be given to the state of the applicant so desired… one would imagine they would only come back with negative results…..
* they may re apply as many times as they wish.
*the state would also offer comprehensive rehabilitation programs.
*marijuana would be legal, therefor the test would not look for THC (or the by product chemical they look for since you cant actually test for THC)
* doctor’s notes would be acceptable to explain positive hits for amphetamines and opiates (aka, perscription ADD and Pain meds)
thanks aoine, thats a much better way of saying what i was trying to say.
No, Aoine is wrong, as are you, Ben. It is an infringement of their rights. Like I said before, and it has been ignored EVERY time, this is no different than social security, VA benefits, food stamps, etc. The state doesn’t have the right to demand access to something that has no bearing. This is no different than requiring that anyone applying for benefits have to submit to sniffer dogs coming into their house or car, to receive them. It is an unwarranted breach of privacy.
Let me try this, do unemployed people have a right to unemployment benefits, or is it a privilege? How about voting? Should everyone have to submit to a drug test before voting?
If unemployment benefits are a right, why do you need to be unemployed to collect them? why do you need proof you are unemployed? there is already criteria that must be met to collect.
and how is it different from nazi dogs comming into your home? because they wont search your home. only what you would otherwise flush down the toilet into a public sewer that the government built for you.
Im not talking about voting so i wont answer that.
i think i was very clear what i was talking about with my bullet points. any additional “well what if they do this, and what if they do that” is not what i was talking about and is just putting words in my mouth.
The consent argument is specious. It is right up there with, “Well if you aren’t guilty, what do you have to worry about?”
+2 to Jason for using the word specious in a sentence.
I worry about everything – Im always guilty – Its genetic
I was raised Catholic 😉
you are welcome Ben – I get what you are saying…
I also understand Jason and Pandora – I just respectfully disagree with them.
sure, all sorts of arguments can be made under the “what if” umbrella – but we are talking about one narrow thing
they are afraid of the “slippery slope”
valid point
so – why arent we screaming louder about the Patriot Act – now there is a SPECIOUS problem
peeing in a jar for UI aint shit compared to that onerous bastard.
I suggest instead of fighting over crumbs – we go for the brass ring – leave the petty shit – get Big Brother out of our lives
I rather see more posts about that
with all due respect to everyone in here…
” This is no different than requiring that anyone applying for benefits have to submit to sniffer dogs coming into their house or car, to receive them. It is an unwarranted breach of privacy.”
you can say NO – you just dont get the benefits applied for
thats my argument – you have the CHOICE
you can clean up your drug act – apply, pee clean and get your benefits – no invasion there either.
you must be 18 to vote,sign a contract, join the military, carry a gun – its an elegibility requirement – but 21 to drink – thats a priority that needs to change too….
sign the sheet – then clean your house 😉 if you are worried.
Ben, is Social Security a right? If so, why do you have to be a certain age to collect it? Do you have a right to ask for social security when you retire? Does the government have the right to make you pee in a cup before you collect it?
As for the difference between sniffer dogs and urine or blood tests, sniffer dogs may seem more intrusive, but blood and urine are even more personal.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Please point out the unemployment benefit clause in the above excerpt.
Its all hypocritical about Drug testing since they do not test for alcohol and these folks in Florida are the same people that want Government out of their lives but do not mind it in your life your bedroom your pee just as long as it is not theirs.
I work in transit and the rules for testing are basically zero tolerance for drugs but a little tolerance for alcohol according to the Federal Regs.
Lg, i understand you disagree with me on this, but i stand by my position.
If this were to happen the way i “think” it should happen, the focus would be on getting people off hard dangerous drugs… let me remind you again, i think its fine to toke and drink and collect.
do you apply these same principles to all jobs that drug test? I can play crazy hyperbole too.
Why do we test teachers for public schools? if they want to do meth, then teach your kids math, it is their right to do so.
SB, I don’t know why you feel you’ve been treated unfairly by me because reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly legitimate way of refuting someone’s argument. You might not like or agree with the counterexamples of rights violation I posed that would be justified under your premises for drug testing UI beneficiaries, but the counterexamples do follow from your position. Your position is fairly indefensible precisely because its premises could used to abridge other rights regardless of whether you agree w/ those abridgements or not.
Dana, i understand that. that is why i made my position very nuanced. what i support is a series of steps to ensure that people arent illegally using dangerous narcotics like meth and heroine. that is why i made things like strict confidentiality and legalized marijuana part of what i supported. An occasional joint or drink could be a necessity while dealing with the stress that comes with looking for work.
look, i completely understand why it is scary. I dont support anything that is currently being proposed because it doesn’t respect individual rights enough.
I do however, firmly believe that the individual should look out for society as much as society looks out for the individual. If you fellow citizens are making the sacrifice of setting aside some of their money to help you when you fall on hard times, you owe it to them to at the very least make an effort to get back on your feet….. if you cant stop using drugs long enough to pass a piss test, you dont need my money in the form of a check….. you need of help to clean up.
I dont think you can say you think that: Providing health care, education, consumer protection, etc… is not Big Brother Government, but the people providing it to ourselves, but consider attempts to have a small form of accountability “big brother government” .
Im taking a fairly idealistic stance here. not really sure it can be achieved anytime soon 🙂
There’s a bunch of problems with giving drug test to people accessing the safety net is that it requires those folks to pass a specific test to access the services of their government — a test that no one else has to pass. If you want to have people who have just lost their jobs to take a drug test to get unemployment — a population who most likely has just come from employment that required drug testing, a population who will be working at trying to get new employment that will likely give them a drug test, you have largely bought the wingnut idea that there is something fundamentally flawed with people who have no employment. And your solution to making you feel better about these flawed people getting these benefits they’ve paid into, is to test them to see if perhaps they are impaired.
If you want to know if unemployed folks are doing what they should be doing, you check their stats in looking for a job. You have to document something each week to get your check. You don’t implement the worst nanny state solution just because you’ve bought the Fox noise business about people slacking off rather than looking for a job.
Although, really, if there is going to be drug testing, there ought to be alcohol testing too like Andy suggests, but there should be mandatory substance tests before you ever access your government. Want to register your car? Pee in a cup. Want to take a tour of the FBI Building in DC? Pee in a cup. Want to pay your taxes? Pee in a cup. Because you know there are people paying their taxes who are totally impaired.
The whole objective is to make poor children suffer and die and imprison or deport their parents. Once you understand this, everything the republicans want makes sense.
you’re right a1. that’s exactly what i want.
“Dave, if he bought himself some alcohol, so what? I have trouble imagining someone in that state “doing something else” with their life. Seems pretty rock bottom to me.”
True, but does he have to stay there? Am I contributing to keeping him there? I know the answer probably is yeah, that’s where he is and where he is always going to be. But I want to believe that human beings are not forever consigned to their condition and given a chance they can achieve something better for themselves.
“There’s a bunch of problems with giving drug test to people accessing the safety net is that it requires those folks to pass a specific test to access the services of their government — a test that no one else has to pass.”–cassandra m
Most EMPLOYED people must pass drug tests, cassandra. I was subject to random testing at any time in my last job. Anyone who holds a CDL is subject to annual drug tests, which are typically NOT announced in advance. Members of the military are subject to random drug tests, too.
Our government requires those who voluntarily join the military to undergo random testing. It is not unreasonable to ask someone who is asking for Unemployment Compensation to pass the same test a 19 yr. old kid serving in Iraq or Afghanistan must pass.
AdA4N, military service is voluntary, unemployment is not.
You are correct, SB. However, collecting Unemployment Compensation IS voluntary.
Most EMPLOYED people must pass drug tests, cassandra. I was subject to random testing at any time in my last job.
And UNEMPLOYED people seeking benefits have fairly recently left their employment. The employment where they were subject to drug tests.
It is a stupid target — a group of people who have been recently let go from jobs where they were subject to drug testing, who are looking for employment where you most likely have to pass a drug test to be hired. You might catch a few people who are just sitting around toking away, but implementing full-scale testing before getting benefits assumes that they are all guilty.
Go cassandra go! You summed things up perfectly.
but needing to eat is not voluntary.
Maybe this will work. DO you think there should be accountability to COMPANIES who receive help…. even though they have also been paying in? what is your definition of individual civic responsibility? Not using heroine and meth while collecting unemployment insurance fits in to my definition. how about yours?
it doesnt assume anyone is guilty. it merely serves as an accountability check, so long as it is confidential and cant possibly lead to charges, not used as “probable cause” and is expunged as soon as insurance is denied. Everyone who is opposing this is opposing CURRENT LAWS. What i am trying to do is give an example of something no one has suggested (not in any state legislator anyway).
t doesnt assume anyone is guilty. it merely serves as an accountability check
These two are exactly the same thing for the purposes you want to use them. Or let’s put it this way — it assumes that everyone applying for unemployment is unaccountable.
No matter how you try to make this sound better to yourself, you are trying to presume that people applying for unemployment are somehow faulty or defective and asking them all for drug tests is a pretty big gun for an awfully small problem.
DO you think there should be accountability to COMPANIES who receive help
First off, companies are not people. Full stop.
Second off, WTF are you talking about? There’s no unemployment insurance for companies.
is that what i assume? please tell me more about what im thinking.
I wasnt aware i thought the unemployed were defective. here i just thought they were a large group of good people who fell on hard times, and some of them may have really gotten into trouble and need some help…help from their fellow citizens. I assume (get what im doing here?) that you have never known anyone struggling with addiction…. they sometimes need a little push to get the help they need. You should not give an addict your resources in the form of money… it should be services provided by The People.. sorry if that is too much socialism for ya.
Let me speak to the Wall again for a sec. I think serious addictive narcotics should be the only focus of these tests. people cna re apply as many times as they wish. help should be offered. any of that sinking in Mr Wall?
whatever way YOU want to sound cooler and smarter and a more badass debater than me for all the readers is fine with me. Im still interested in if you think there is any responsibility on the individual’s part to look out for the investment society is making by looking out for them. Since you like to tell me what i think, i’ll mention again that i totally and passionately agree with society looking out for the individual.
so tax subsidies, bail-outs, etc. that is just what, magic money? and that money was given to the PEOPLE who run the CORPORATION. Computers can form a business plan and incorporate… yet…. so until then, (here it comes…. i better get my umbrella i guess this will officially make me socialistic Newt) all corporations are run by people…. KEEP READING CASSANDRA, dont just respond to that…. and those people need to be held accountable… or rewarded… depending on the actions of their creation…. which they control. that’s what im talking about.
And so how do you know it is addicts applying for unemployment insurance? Is there a government-kept addict database someplace?
And this is what I said here KEEP READING SB:
No matter how you try to make this sound better to yourself, you are trying to presume that people applying for unemployment are somehow faulty or defective […]
The word is presume, which (I can’t believe I’m saying this here) is a different word than assume.
So what we’ve reached here is the point in these arguments where you need a strawman to make your case. Do that without misreading my words. There isn’t some central database someplace where unemployment benefit clerks can check to see if it is an addict who is applying for benefits. An addict who was apparently functional enough to keep a job for a while, BTW. So that clerk won’t know about “who to hold accountable” unless everyone who passes by his desk pees in a cup. Or unless you are depending upon people to actually *tell* the government that they have drug or alcohol issues when they apply for benefits.
🙄
so tax subsidies, bail-outs, etc. that is just what, magic money?
It’s not unemployment insurance, which is what we are talking about.
And when you figure out how to make a corporation take a drug test, get back to us.
maybe i didnt make myself clear with the bullet points. who knows.
but ive said it can only be acceptable if it is confidential and no records are kept past a piece of paper that, pending negative results for HARD DANGEROUS DRUGS, will get you approved…. you’d need to do it once. not every week. Let me play the look cool on blog game. The tiny percentage of unemployed people who are so addicted to drugs than they cant lay off long enough to clear their system for a urine test, in your opinion, should just be given money and hope things work out.
see how annoying and rude that is? i done think you think that. I think you’re defending privacy… which is why im trying to offer a ….. OH NO, HERE IT COMES….. compromise that will offer accountability, while offering help to THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO NEED IT, while respecting privacy as much as possible.
you cant have a system where we all provide basic needs and protection to each other with not even an attempt at accountability. having regulations on businesses, who’s decisions are made by humans, presumes those humans may use their company to bend or break the rules. my idea is no different.
“And when you figure out how to make a corporation take a drug test, get back to us.”
how about having them submit a plan on what they intend to do with the money? the didnt actually happen because rethugs are fans at throwing money at a problem and hoping it works out.
we’re goin all Jerry Springer on each other over a hypothetical scenario I suggested that will NEVER happen. Dont know how many more times i need to say i don’t agree with florida, or anywhere else that is attempting this. You will never see drug testing for unemployment where pot and alcohol get a pass, and confidentiality is kept, and legitimate help is offered to those who need help, so insulting me in front of your friends accomplishes nothing at all.
I do think, based on this argument that we should have a different discussion on the role of the individual in a progressive society where a lot of things….. and rightly so, are provided to the individual by society. what is the individual’s role to insure that system is sustainable? we assume companies will misbehave, but again… people have to make those decisions. so what, old rich white people are the only ones capable of greed and thus the only ones we should regulate? that’s not at all what anyone here believes, but when you take an ultimate position, you run the risk of looking like you support crazy things.
The tiny percentage of unemployed people who are so addicted to drugs than they cant lay off long enough to clear their system for a urine test, in your opinion, should just be given money and hope things work out.
There are criteria for being able to apply for unemployment benefits.
And nor have you addressed exactly how the unemployment benefit clerk is supposed to know who is supposed to be, you know, HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
I think you’re defending privacy
You should probably ask me what I’m defending. My argument has nothing to do with privacy, and it has everything to do with overreaching and bureaucratic idiocy. So here you are saying that addicts applying for unemployment benefits should be “held accountable”, without the clerk authorizing those benefits having a way to know who the addicts are standing in front of them? Sheesh. You can’t even keep the details of your own argument straight.
how about having them submit a plan on what they intend to do with the money?
Then how about asking UI recipients to submit a plan for not taking any drugs for while they are getting UI benefits? It would be the same level of accountability they you propose for corporations that are no people getting UI benefits.
But since we are talking about UI benefits, you don’t get to do the corporations dodge.
because i dont feel like reading this whole thread, ill say it again. all the clerk would see is a negative test. that’s it. the only record ever kept is that the person applying was clean for the past 2 weeks. that’s it. nothing more. And don’t tell me about criteria for receiving unemployment insurance. i know all about it. It’s annoying to have people tell you what you’re thinking isnt it? Bureaucratic idiocy…… wow
This isnt Hardball. there is no national audience to impress by trying to make an anonymous person look …. however you’re trying to make me look. I asked you a while ago what you though the individual’s role was in a progressive “support each other through government action” society and all Ive gotten is critiques of my debate and blogging style. if you don’t feel Ive defined and nuanced what i want enough thats fine. I’ll do it again. Most of what you’re using to attack my idea, i tried to make attempts to exclude. I obviously haven’t done a good enough job crafting this legislation. I guess it isn’t ready for debate.
And i got the right to use the corporations dodge as soon as people started throwing Social Security, voting, and other things that arent U.I around.
So you don’t even read your own writing, right?
I think serious addictive narcotics should be the only focus of these tests.
Answer how the unemployment benefits clerk would know “who should be the focus of these tests” if you don’t test everybody first.
you DO test everyone. the only people who would be denied money are those who test positive for those drugs. a positive test would show that they are so much in need of help that just a check and a handshake wont work. they would need NOT JAIL….NOT A RECORD, but rehabilitation services where, basic necessities are provided. what is so RWNJ about that? This is very similar to an individual mandate on health insurance….. ya know. society saying “we want to help you, but you need to participate” (with a public option… no pubic option is just a payday for insurance cartels)
It still presumes that there is something wrong with people who apply for UI benefits. You get off the *wrong* list by passing the drug test. These same people could go get driver’s licences without having to drug test.
And the other thing that makes it RWNJ is that it is just plain STUPID. You spend a ton of taxpayer dollars to filter out a few people. In the meantime, you get to feel all superior because people are being “held accountable”.
The thing that we tangle over routinely is not policy, but whether that policy makes you feel better. Which is a dumb way to do policy. And a dumb way to govern. Which is exactly (one of) the policy focus of the RWNJ — invoke the kind of governmental personal controls or surveillance over people who are some Other that somehow needs some controls.
Some weeks back you were mad as a hatter over being stopped and questioned by a police checkpoint. You were mad because you don’t perceive yourself as being *one of those people* who should be stopped and questioned at a checkpoint. Creating a drug checkpoint at the gate to UI benefits does to alot of people exactly what you objected to in that police checkpoint. It’s perfectly fine until it gets pointed at you.
actually, i was fine with the checkpoint. i was mad at the way the officers treated my car, specifically my black friend in the back seat. i saw 3 cars of white girls get waived through after the cop glanced at only the driver’s license while all 3 of my passengers licenses, including mine were taken to be “verified” while we waited on the side of the road. a little different than how you seem to view me.
This isnt about feeling superior. this is an idea…. as consensus would suggest, a bad one, to promote my broader view that the individual should uphold society just as much as society should uphold the individual…. furthermore, the focus of this is to help people. Can i ask again? im gonna ask again…. In a society… that we seem to agree on where, the people provide for ourselves AND each other Health care, education etc…. do you think there should be any kind of checks to make sure it is efficient? i do… this is one of my ideas. you dont like it. that’s fine with me. What isnt fine with me is personal attacks (to which i’ll respond with personal attacks, because im immature and hot-headed) and sweeping generalizations about what im thinking based on resemblence my idea bears to other wackier ideas.
and as far as drug policy goes, we dont deal well at all with drug use in this country. we just throw people in jail…. where they can get more dangerous drugs. (thanks, Biden)
Mandated health insurance is a pretty big government control. Unless you are willing to say you must provide proof of insurance in order to receive any kind (even emergency) care. that is monstrous…. so, if a mandate to buy something very personal is ok, if it is in the interest if keeping the entire system working…….. see what im trying to say here?
I’m NOT fine with checkpoints.
You can get out of the mandate if you are willing to pay the fine.
You don’t get denied emergency care if you don’t have insurance. In your scenario, people who can’t pass the test don’t get UI benefits. And the vast majority of people who don’t have any issues have to pee in a cup so you can feel better about holding addicts accountable.
any kind of checks to make sure it is efficient
There is a difference between working at system efficiency and asking applicants to met some criteria of worthiness that you’ve created. If you were interested in efficiency, you wouldn’t be spending the money or wasting the time of the vast majority of folks applying for UI benefits.
And this:
What isnt fine with me is personal attacks
is more RWNJ-baggery. Since you haven’t been personally attacked here and you are the one who has been doing the sweeping generalizations. Largely because your argument is falling apart and this is pretty much par for the course.
rwnj is a grave insult. and what, wanting to help people with addiction is a sweeping generalization? please explain why.
“so you can feel better about holding addicts accountable.” try making an argument without that in there. this isnt to make me feel better. you cant tell me what im “feeling” that is a bad debate technique because you have no idea what’s going on in my head (neither do i most of the time teehee)
Im not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here. Just more “you’re wrong and your ideas are stupid”
I do see your point. i really really do. Not about how im a RWNJ who is so ignorant of issues and reactionary that i support laws that make me feel better….. although im sure there is a bunch of legislation you support that would make you feel pretty good.. you can use your argument about civil rights laws, women’s rights laws…. im NOT using that argument. those things are basic human rights, not emotional footballs…. but one COULD. but i digress. Talk with me about the root of my proposal.
We agree that The People should, using the government, make sure our fellow citizens have basic needs taken care of. those needs include education, health care, and unemployment protection. I totally agree with that. I dont make a lot of money, but id be more than willing to pay more taxes if i knew those things were guaranteed to my fellow citizens… even ones who demonstrate udder contempt for me. I PERSONALLY feel that the individual has a responsibility to give back.
I need to very clear here….. just because you are unemployed does not mean you arent giving back. it is NOT your fault, you deserve support and help until you get back on your feet. Looking at the example of U.I however, i dont see how just giving money to someone… even if they are less than 1% of the people receiving it…… who is sick (because addiction is a sickness) helps that person. that is where im coming from. feel free to respond however you like.
give me a counter suggestion to that problem that doesn’t involve calling me or my ideas stupid