shittygsxr Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 I didn't do ANY calculations, those were done by other entities...and it's not a "high horse" to understand basik maths...What is the ROI on welfare, food stamps, or any of our current wars? One minute you are talking about our responsibility to save the world and the next every dollar spent needs to have a positive ROI. In their analysis did they calculate how many tax dollars people avoid paying because they don't like paying for some hood rat to get a new weave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekClouser Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 (edited) Perscription drugs are a HUGE problem, the mother of 2 of my granddaughters overdosed & died last weekend from perscription drugs.. Nobody in the whole of human history has died from smoking pot! Pot is not a drug it is a weed that you dry & smoke, but the feds say it is as bad as herion or cocaine. BULLSHIT! A) It's prescription not perscription - but that's not really relevant to the argumentB) Mushrooms are a fungus that grows out of the ground too and I'd think we'd all agree the effects of mushrooms are a danger to society.C) If you think that there hasn't been a car accident death or accident caused because someone was high, you're sadly mistaken. I don't smoke weed, but I've seen people high and it affects your response time. There's absolutely no chance in hell that there has NEVER been a case where an accident was caused because someone was high. The argument here isn't whether or not weed should be legalized. Personally I don't care either way, I really don't think it will change much. The point is under the current system where weed is illegal, tax payers should have the right to refuse to pay towards a program that awards law breakers. does this include testing for alcohol or tobacco? why should people be drinking beer or smoking cigs while receiving benefits? Drinking beer and smoking cigarettes are currently legal at the federal level. If marijuana was legal federally, I'd agree with everyone that it shouldn't be tested for before receiving welfare. Edited August 30, 2013 by DerekClouser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 What is the ROI on welfare, food stamps, or any of our current wars?One minute you are talking about our responsibility to save the world and the next every dollar spent needs to have a positive ROI.In their analysis did they calculate how many tax dollars people avoid paying because they don't like paying for some hood rat to get a new weave? The main reason given for "drug testing welfare" is for tax payer savings..."tax payers shouldn't have to foot the bill for drug users"The fact that it actually costs more to administer the tests is pertinent because now tax payers are footing the bill for drug tests that are easily cheated AS WELL AS drug users...it doesn't solve the "tax payers shouldn't have to foot the bill for drug users" problem, or even put a big dent in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shittygsxr Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 The main reason given for "drug testing welfare" is for tax payer savings..."tax payers shouldn't have to foot the bill for drug users"The fact that it actually costs more to administer the tests is pertinent because now tax payers are footing the bill for drug tests that are easily cheated AS WELL AS drug users...it doesn't solve the "tax payers shouldn't have to foot the bill for drug users" problem, or even put a big dent in it.Tax payer savings and tax payers shouldn't have to foot the bill for drug users are two completely different motivations for the legislation. I am ok with just eliminating the programs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 The point is under the current system where weed is illegal, tax payers should have the right to refuse to pay towards a program that awards law breakers. So why stop at weed? Why stop at welfare?Why not exclude all law breakers from federal and state assistance programs?Ever got a speeding ticket? GTFO and dieParking ticket? GTFO and dieJaywalked? GTFO and die No federally subsidized student loans, no pell grants, no tax deductions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 Tax payer savings and tax payers shouldn't have to foot the bill for drug users are two completely different motivations for the legislation.I am ok with just eliminating the programs I'm aware they are 2 different motivations, which is why i addressed them both. 1. doesn't solve the problem2. costs way more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 (edited) DerekClouser, on 30 Aug 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:If you think that there hasn't been a car accident death or accident caused because someone was high, you're sadly mistaken.the CAUSE of the death in that case is a car accident, not marijuana. sure, its a marijuana RELATED death, and the drug use can be a contributing factor, but its not the CAUSE.pretty sure what he was trying to say is that you can't OD on it like you can pretty much everything else out thereDerekClouser, on 30 Aug 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:Drinking beer and smoking cigarettes are currently legal at the federal level. If marijuana was legal federally, I'd agree with everyone that it shouldn't be tested for before receiving welfare.i thought the whole point here was that we dont want people wasting government assitance? the guy who proposed the law said "It is time that we recognize that many families are trying to survive in drug-induced poverty". but somehow alcohol induced poverty is OK? how is it a waste if someone buys a dime bag, but if they buy a case of beer and a carton of smokes it's not? just "because beer is legal" is a weak argument against it.the only people this will catch are people who smoke pot anyway. since it stays in your system for 30+ days, and the hard drugs, the ones that are truly dangerous and "poverty inducing" are out of your system in a day or three. so someone smokes a joint on a friday night, then three weeks later they get tested and boom, they are in trouble... three weeks later. but if you use meth, you're fine just as long as you dont use the day before your drug test. then you can go back to spending every dollar on tweaking out. how does that fix anything?if the true point was to HELP PEOPLE, then alcohol and tobacco would be included, as they cause much more harm to society than anyone smoking a joint.the real fact of the matter is that this isnt about helping people, and it's not about saving taxpayer money. first, its political play so this guy can say "hay look what i tried to do" and a bunch of people who are ignorant to the true facts about welfare drug use rates and testing costs will say "HAY U DID GREAT JOB!!!1". it plays off their prejudice that everyone on welfare is using drugs, when it's simply not true. the welfare drug use rate mirrors that of the general public. about 3%. every other state where this has been tried, has found that they spent more money on the testing than they saved by kicking 7 people off the programs. do you spend 30K to save 4K? second, its about MAKING money. who owns the drug testing company that this guy wants to use? how much did they donate to his campaign? is this something like florida where the governor pushed really hard for welfare drug testing, and then the company that won the contract to do the testing just happened to be OWNED by his wife? its definitely about money, but not saving taxpayer money. its more about putting money in the pocket of this guy and his buddies. Edited August 30, 2013 by John 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekClouser Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 the CAUSE of the death in that case is a car accident, not marijuana. sure, its a marijuana RELATED death, and the drug use can be a contributing factor, but its not the CAUSE.pretty sure what he was trying to say is that you can't OD on it like you can pretty much everything else out there i thought the whole point here was that we dont want people wasting government assitance? the guy who proposed the law said "It is time that we recognize that many families are trying to survive in drug-induced poverty". but somehow alcohol induced poverty is OK? how is it a waste if someone buys a dime bag, but if they buy a case of beer and a carton of smokes it's not? just "because beer is legal" is a weak argument against it.the only people this will catch are people who smoke pot anyway. since it stays in your system for 30+ days, and the hard drugs, the ones that are truly dangerous and "poverty inducing" are out of your system in a day or three. so someone smokes a joint on a friday night, then three weeks later they get tested and boom, they are in trouble... three weeks later. but if you use meth, you're fine just as long as you dont use the day before your drug test. then you can go back to spending every dollar on tweaking out. how does that fix anything?if the true point was to HELP PEOPLE, then alcohol and tobacco would be included, as they cause much more harm to society than anyone smoking a joint.the real fact of the matter is that this isnt about helping people, and it's not about saving taxpayer money. first, its political play so this guy can say "hay look what i tried to do" and a bunch of people who are ignorant to the true facts about welfare drug use rates and testing costs will say "HAY U DID GREAT JOB!!!1". it plays off their prejudice that everyone on welfare is using drugs, when it's simply not true. the welfare drug use rate mirrors that of the general public. about 3%. every other state where this has been tried, has found that they spent more money on the testing than they saved by kicking 7 people off the programs. do you spend 30K to save 4K? second, its about MAKING money. who owns the drug testing company that this guy wants to use? how much did they donate to his campaign? is this something like florida where the governor pushed really hard for welfare drug testing, and then the company that won the contract to do the testing just happened to be OWNED by his wife? its definitely about money, but not saving taxpayer money. its more about putting money in the pocket of this guy and his buddies. You've swayed my opinion. Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shittygsxr Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 So why stop at weed? Why stop at welfare?Why not exclude all law breakers from federal and state assistance programs?Ever got a speeding ticket? GTFO and dieParking ticket? GTFO and dieJaywalked? GTFO and dieNo federally subsidized student loans, no pell grants, no tax deductions...I wonder how the world ever existed without these programs. Your arguments are absolutely terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted August 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2013 the CAUSE of the death in that case is a car accident, not marijuana. sure, its a marijuana RELATED death, and the drug use can be a contributing factor, but its not the CAUSE.pretty sure what he was trying to say is that you can't OD on it like you can pretty much everything else out there i thought the whole point here was that we dont want people wasting government assitance? the guy who proposed the law said "It is time that we recognize that many families are trying to survive in drug-induced poverty". but somehow alcohol induced poverty is OK? how is it a waste if someone buys a dime bag, but if they buy a case of beer and a carton of smokes it's not? just "because beer is legal" is a weak argument against it.the only people this will catch are people who smoke pot anyway. since it stays in your system for 30+ days, and the hard drugs, the ones that are truly dangerous and "poverty inducing" are out of your system in a day or three. so someone smokes a joint on a friday night, then three weeks later they get tested and boom, they are in trouble... three weeks later. but if you use meth, you're fine just as long as you dont use the day before your drug test. then you can go back to spending every dollar on tweaking out. how does that fix anything?if the true point was to HELP PEOPLE, then alcohol and tobacco would be included, as they cause much more harm to society than anyone smoking a joint.the real fact of the matter is that this isnt about helping people, and it's not about saving taxpayer money. first, its political play so this guy can say "hay look what i tried to do" and a bunch of people who are ignorant to the true facts about welfare drug use rates and testing costs will say "HAY U DID GREAT JOB!!!1". it plays off their prejudice that everyone on welfare is using drugs, when it's simply not true. the welfare drug use rate mirrors that of the general public. about 3%. every other state where this has been tried, has found that they spent more money on the testing than they saved by kicking 7 people off the programs. do you spend 30K to save 4K? second, its about MAKING money. who owns the drug testing company that this guy wants to use? how much did they donate to his campaign? is this something like florida where the governor pushed really hard for welfare drug testing, and then the company that won the contract to do the testing just happened to be OWNED by his wife? its definitely about money, but not saving taxpayer money. its more about putting money in the pocket of this guy and his buddies. Hard drugs wont be outta their system because they are so hooked on them they wont stop even if they know they will be tested. I deal with this shit daily. People brag about getting their free money, while making sure you know they have the newest Iphone, Jordans, gold necklace... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted August 31, 2013 Report Share Posted August 31, 2013 Just common sense test them. If they fail, provide permanent birth control. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted August 31, 2013 Report Share Posted August 31, 2013 State testing changes now apply to some colleges and universities also. New rules at work. Random testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.