Interesting thought...

[trickblue]

I got one of the likely fake letters in my email the other day...

Not sure how legitimate it was, but it made an interesting point...

This gist was that he works hard and makes a decent living... always subject to drug tests...

He has no problem with taking them as he said he was clean. Then it got interesting...

He said he felt that those on unemployment/welfare should have to take a drug test before receiving funds from his check...

Whether the letter is true or not, it raises an interesting question... should they?

[Jon88]

They should, but it would be very expensive to test everyone.

[trickblue]

They should, but it would be very expensive to test everyone.

True... but the threat may scare them off of them...

[jrumann59]

True... but the threat may scare them off of them...


Not going to happen there is a big push in this country to legalize all drugs because of the drain on the judicial system. What no one realizes it comes back at the local level in increased taxing to support local public safdety departments and a re-write of all OSHA and vehicle laws.

[masomenos]

That is interesting.

My initial reaction is to say that they shouldn't undergo drug tests in order to receive benefits. As someone already said, it would be expensive. Also, it seems like it could have a very negative effect on children of welfare households where the parent is a druggie. The children already have it bad and it's likely that only a little of the welfare money goes to support them. What happens if you take that away? The parents won't stop using drugs, so even less money will go towards supporting the children and they'll be even worse off.

I don't know...

[trickblue]

That is interesting.

My initial reaction is to say that they shouldn't undergo drug tests in order to receive benefits. As someone already said, it would be expensive. Also, it seems like it could have a very negative effect on children of welfare households where the parent is a druggie. The children already have it bad and it's likely that only a little of the welfare money goes to support them. What happens if you take that away? The parents won't stop using drugs, so even less money will go towards supporting the children and they'll be even worse off.

I don't know...

It's a two-edged sword... many are spending the money on drugs anyway with no effort on finding a job...

I've always felt that welfare recipients (that are able) should be required to work so many hours a week at a state or federal prison...

[masomenos]

It's a two-edged sword... many are spending the money on drugs anyway with no effort on finding a job...

I've always felt that welfare recipients (that are able) should be required to work so many hours a week at a state or federal prison...

That's something that I would be on board with. If you're receiving state/federal money, then you should be required to work on projects that improve the state.

[ShiningStar]

It's a two-edged sword... many are spending the money on drugs anyway with no effort on finding a job...

I've always felt that welfare recipients (that are able) should be required to work so many hours a week at a state or federal prison...


you do realize jails and prisons have become "build a better thug'. So you send the druggie to the state or federal prison to work and learn how to be either a better criminal in other areas to get more drugs, or how wiser to be with their drugs.

yeah, dont think so, keep the possible people with drugs, not working with prisons or jails or near law enforcement.


I like the idea of putting them somewhere, just not where they can fine tune their craft, if you know what i mean.

[trickblue]

you do realize jails and prisons have become "build a better thug'. So you send the druggie to the state or federal prison to work and learn how to be either a better criminal in other areas to get more drugs, or how wiser to be with their drugs.

yeah, dont think so, keep the possible people with drugs, not working with prisons or jails or near law enforcement.


I like the idea of putting them somewhere, just not where they can fine tune their craft, if you know what i mean.

So... groundswork... cafeteria... laundry... none of these work?

[ShiningStar]

So... groundswork... cafeteria... laundry... none of these work?


no, because prisoners work those jobs as well.

[ZeroClub]

Besides drugs, what else could be check / screened?

Some sort of screen for outstanding warrants.
Legal immigration status.
A not a deadbeat Dad check.

What else? I'm curious what sort of list we could come up with.

[trickblue]

Besides drugs, what else could be check / screened?

Some sort of screen for outstanding warrants.
Legal immigration status.
A not a deadbeat Dad check.

What else? I'm curious what sort of list we could come up with.

All legit...

[sbark]

are the hundreds of thousand Unionized govt. employee's subject to drug tests?

add em' to the list in my book

[ZeroClub]

Why not just make everyone in the United States subject to random drug tests?

I'm asking this as a serious question. How many people here would be on board with this?

[the kid 05]

you do realize jails and prisons have become "build a better thug'. So you send the druggie to the state or federal prison to work and learn how to be either a better criminal in other areas to get more drugs, or how wiser to be with their drugs.


you want to talk about "building a better thug" look no further then the army. there is no rule saying a gang member can enlist. so what do they do? join up serve use their new found leadership and weapon tactics to recruit and train people. Its said to be a pretty big problem out in Cali

[masomenos]

Why not just make everyone in the United States subject to random drug tests?

I'm asking this as a serious question. How many people here would be on board with this?

I believe that random drug testing would violate the protections against unlawful searches. There's no probable cause. Having welfare recipients submit to drug tests would be different though, they'd just have to sign a consent form as part of the application process.

[vta]

It's a two-edged sword... many are spending the money on drugs anyway with no effort on finding a job...

I've always felt that welfare recipients (that are able) should be required to work so many hours a week at a state or federal prison...

Guiliani broached the subject of making people work for their Government bennie's, be it welfare or unemployment.

You should have seen the fits these people threw... working for money? Who'd have thought?

[Jarv]

On a similar vein, I remarked to a friend yesterday (Based on a story I saw on the Detroit school system) that people receiving welfare or benefits should have them based upon the attendance of their children in school.

Make these folks make their children go to school. They must show parenting skills to receive funds for being a parent.

[SuspectCorner]

Not going to happen there is a big push in this country to legalize all drugs because of the drain on the judicial system. What no one realizes it comes back at the local level in increased taxing to support local public safdety departments and a re-write of all OSHA and vehicle laws.

All of which could be underwritten by "sin taxes"...

The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $32.7 billion
annually, assuming legal drugs are taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and
tobacco. Approximately $6.7 of this revenue would result from legalization of
marijuana, $22.5 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $3.5 from
legalization of other drugs.

http://leap.cc/dia/miron-economic-report.pdf

[ZeroClub]

I believe that random drug testing would violate the protections against unlawful searches. There's no probable cause. Having welfare recipients submit to drug tests would be different though, they'd just have to sign a consent form as part of the application process.

O.K., so maybe we get everyone who renews a drivers license or registers a car to sign a consent form as part of the renewal/registration process.

[JBond]

O.K., so maybe we get everyone who renews a drivers license or registers a car to sign a consent form as part of the renewal/registration process.

Why? You can not legislate morality. The crack whores will always be there. The fools who smoke their way through high school and can barely read will still be there. More government programs will make zero difference. The portion of society with tremendous numbers of out of wedlock births will continue. The idea of family is dying a slow death and if that trend is not reversed, nothing the government will do will matter.

Until the idea of personal responsibility is enforced we will continue to decay as a society.

[Hoofbite]

All of which could be underwritten by "sin taxes"...

The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $32.7 billion
annually, assuming legal drugs are taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and
tobacco. Approximately $6.7 of this revenue would result from legalization of
marijuana, $22.5 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $3.5 from
legalization of other drugs.

http://leap.cc/dia/miron-economic-report.pdf

Have you ever seen a heroine addict?

Im not sure 22.6B would be worth it just going off of having to look at those people.

You legalize marijuana, fine. Under no circumstance should heroine be legalized.

[Future]

Wouldn't it save more to test and not provide welfare to those who failed, than to give welfare to everybody?

[ninja]

Besides drugs, what else could be check / screened?

Some sort of screen for outstanding warrants.
Legal immigration status.
A not a deadbeat Dad check.

What else? I'm curious what sort of list we could come up with.

You mean this stuff isn't checked already? It should be.

You are doing good, keep the list going.

[ninja]

Why not just make everyone in the United States subject to random drug tests?

I'm asking this as a serious question. How many people here would be on board with this?

I'm on board. Let's do it. Drugs are for losers. Expose the losers.

[masomenos]

O.K., so maybe we get everyone who renews a drivers license or registers a car to sign a consent form as part of the renewal/registration process.

Well that just wouldn't make much sense. If you included the entire driving population in your random searches, then the odds of actually catching someone would be drastically lower. It wouldn't be cost efficient at all.

[SuspectCorner]

Have you ever seen a heroine addict?

Im not sure 22.6B would be worth it just going off of having to look at those people.

You legalize marijuana, fine. Under no circumstance should heroine be legalized.

Those that really want heroin will generally find a way to get heroin. Prohibition drives up the cost of these drugs and so provides more profit incentive to outlaws and thugs both here and abroad - and costs our country and others billions in military, law enforcement, court, and penal system costs. By legalizing (while controlling the use of) heroin - we bring a shadow economy out into the daylight, generate tax revenues to more efficiently confront the real issues with drugs, and minimize their negative effects on society.

The vast majority of us are rational and think along the margins. Are you going to start using heroin just because it's legal? Of course not.

Legalizing probably wouldn't leave us with any more problems than we currently have - we'd just be dealing with them in a saner, more efficient, manner. Prohibition as an approach to drugs hasn't panned out - and in many ways just exacerbates the problem.

[Jon88]

All of which could be underwritten by "sin taxes"...

The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $32.7 billion
annually, assuming legal drugs are taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and
tobacco. Approximately $6.7 of this revenue would result from legalization of
marijuana, $22.5 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $3.5 from
legalization of other drugs.

http://leap.cc/dia/miron-economic-report.pdf

So many people would get hooked on cocaine and heroin being that it would be more easily accesible. Tired of drinking and smoking pot? Let's try some heroin or cocaine. It's sold at the store too.

[vta]

The vast majority of us are rational and think along the margins. Are you going to start using heroin just because it's legal? Of course not.

Legalizing probably wouldn't leave us with any more problems than we currently have - we'd just be dealing with them in a saner, more efficient, manner. Prohibition as an approach to drugs hasn't panned out - and in many ways just exacerbates the problem.

Availability and accessibility most certainly do lead to a broader user base.
The tenets of advertising are based on this principle, and while we might not see brand name heroine commercials, if it were legalized, it's accessibility would most definitely make it more commonplace.

[ThaBigP]

Not going to happen there is a big push in this country to legalize all drugs because of the drain on the judicial system. What no one realizes it comes back at the local level in increased taxing to support local public safdety departments and a re-write of all OSHA and vehicle laws.

That's another matter entirely. Just because some (even all) drugs may be legalized for posession and use does not mean that companies cannot drug test their employees. Alcohol is legal, but you can't show up to work drunk. The pot smokers are at a built-in disadvantage in that their use can be detected 30 days or more after-the-fact (as if that were a measurement of present imparement, but I digress). Soldiers and cops likewise would still be drug tested. You couldn't drive impared, etc etc. So the same could be done with government benefits. Not saying it will, but it still could.

[Vintage]

Why not just make everyone in the United States subject to random drug tests?

I'm asking this as a serious question. How many people here would be on board with this?


Absolutely not.

And I've never done any illicit drugs.

The worse thing I use is alcohol.

[ThaBigP]

Those that really want heroin will generally find a way to get heroin. Prohibition drives up the cost of these drugs and so provides more profit incentive to outlaws and thugs both here and abroad - and costs our country and others billions in military, law enforcement, court, and penal system costs. By legalizing (while controlling the use of) heroin - we bring a shadow economy out into the daylight, generate tax revenues to more efficiently confront the real issues with drugs, and minimize their negative effects on society.

The vast majority of us are rational and think along the margins. Are you going to start using heroin just because it's legal? Of course not.

Legalizing probably wouldn't leave us with any more problems than we currently have - we'd just be dealing with them in a saner, more efficient, manner. Prohibition as an approach to drugs hasn't panned out - and in many ways just exacerbates the problem.

Just keep in mind what you suggest has consequences that we as a society must be prepared to face. First, you mention controlling the use of these substances though they are legal (much as alcohol is today). That means you still may have to throw some folks in the clink who violate the laws we would still have (such as driving under the influence or providing drugs to minors). This of course relieves the burden of throwing anybody in jail for mere posession.

The second, and probably harder, consequence is that we as a society must be prepared to walk over the strung-out bum in the gutter who has chosen to reduce their life to one of dependency. You will never maintain a free society by coddling people who make bad choices for the purpose of protecting them from the consequences (ahem...bailouts...ahem) of their own actions. I probably *would* be in favor of legalization...blanket legalization even...provided we don't have tax-payer clinics with revolving doors, or more gun control to stop the rise in self-defense shootings when strung-out-druggies break into houses to get other peoples' stuff to sell for drugs (even though they're legal, those who get strung out will likely not be very employable). Nor would I be in favor of tax-payer funded "free drugs" to prevent the aforementioned crime. Because if you do support those things after legalization, all you are saying is that the responsible taxpayer (whether they responsibly use drugs recreationally choose not to use at all) must bear the burden of those who chose to live irresponsibly.

And don't think I'm under any illusions that prohibition has freed us from the burden of drug crime...far from it. We still have plenty of that crime now. And, as you pointed out, much of our capacity in the judicial system is spent trying and locking away those who were caught in simple posession. But I'm just trying to point out that repeal of prohibition will not be all sunshine and roses either. But it will be much worse if we legalize then coddle and enable.

[SuspectCorner]

Just keep in mind what you suggest has consequences that we as a society must be prepared to face. First, you mention controlling the use of these substances though they are legal (much as alcohol is today). That means you still may have to throw some folks in the clink who violate the laws we would still have (such as driving under the influence or providing drugs to minors). This of course relieves the burden of throwing anybody in jail for mere posession.

The second, and probably harder, consequence is that we as a society must be prepared to walk over the strung-out bum in the gutter who has chosen to reduce their life to one of dependency. You will never maintain a free society by coddling people who make bad choices for the purpose of protecting them from the consequences (ahem...bailouts...ahem) of their own actions. I probably *would* be in favor of legalization...blanket legalization even...provided we don't have tax-payer clinics with revolving doors, or more gun control to stop the rise in self-defense shootings when strung-out-druggies break into houses to get other peoples' stuff to sell for drugs (even though they're legal, those who get strung out will likely not be very employable). Nor would I be in favor of tax-payer funded "free drugs" to prevent the aforementioned crime. Because if you do support those things after legalization, all you are saying is that the responsible taxpayer (whether they responsibly use drugs recreationally choose not to use at all) must bear the burden of those who chose to live irresponsibly.

And don't think I'm under any illusions that prohibition has freed us from the burden of drug crime...far from it. We still have plenty of that crime now. And, as you pointed out, much of our capacity in the judicial system is spent trying and locking away those who were caught in simple posession. But I'm just trying to point out that repeal of prohibition will not be all sunshine and roses either. But it will be much worse if we legalize then coddle and enable.

No such illusions here... the abuse of drugs will continue to be a problem. I just happen to believe that repealing drug prohibition laws alleviates more burdens on our society than it currently places upon us.

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php