I just want to interject into this conversation a hypothetical scenario. 1. Woman has 5 kids to feed but loses job, so she applies for welfare. 2. Woman is rejected becase she had a puff on a joint with her friend a week prior. 3. Woman is not able to feed children so Protective Services comes and takes them away. 4. Woman starves to death.
OK I guess the mission was accomplished here right? because now the government has the 5 kids and the women is dead. If that's the aim, I think this idea would manifest that end.
Sounds good to me, the bitch shouldn't have puff puffed, should have just passed.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
The founders also put anything about the privacy of a person? Because if they put a clause that you have the right to have a gattling gun I am pretty sure they would have thought of that too. I find it at the very least inexcusable that any company or the state, performs drug tests anyway. Why then do you pay for the police or detox centers? And apart of that it is degrading to most people. Personally I find it a huge breach on the right of privacy but also an inability to keep a check on the drug addicts.
I disagree. Because a company has a right to know that their workers are competent. In many jobs an employee can cause death or injury to another employee by being under the infuence of any substance. Pilots have many lives depending on them, doctors have lives depending on them, airplane mechanics, crane operators have lives depending on them.
If these people can afford to support a drug habit they can use that money to buy their own food. If they cannot afford drugs or food, this should not be an issue. People are actually using government funds to buy their drugs and it is not right for tax payers to be forced to pay for this.
I agree with part of your logic, but the end doesn't justify the means.
For companies. If the employee has a clean criminal record I see no reason to breach his or her privacy. What you are saying here is that it's ok to take pre emptive strikes against threats. That's where I disagree. There are plenty of ways that are not invasive including psycological testing that can give quite accurate information on a subject without breaching his rights and above all his dignity. In Europe it was never an issue why it has been the case in US?
If people are drug users is the issue. I disagree in taking the right of privacy with just an "If". If they have a record or they have been arrested then yes by all means remove them from welfare. Fund better the police and remove its corruption to be able to work drug cases better. But invading basic rights such as this opens a new can of worms.
As I wrote in the previous post, someone can use that argument to perform mental tests to people, to see if they are capable of owning guns. See here how 2 rights are being breached?
Aparently you have never worked in the medical field ... I was very grateful when they started testing the nurses... so many tested positive ( primarily speed and painkillers) and were taken off the floor. It is very dangerous to have people working under the influence when lives are at stake, and yes it was an alarming amount of them at the time.
I think that any employer has the right to have this as a qualification for the job along with any other qualification they deem necessary to do the job. Just as jobs require degrees, knowledge, ability.... they should have the ability to determine who they have working for them.
I don;t think the government should go around drug testing everyone.. far from it, but in order to qualify for benefits because you claim you are too poor to afford food, you would be too poor to afford drugs as well, so that shouldn;t be an issue right?
No I have never worked in the medical field. But I am in a family of docs and teachers so my experience is based from that. If a person is working under the influence at that time, it's the job of the supervisor to make sure that's not the case. I don't know how US hospitals work, but from my perspective it seems the supervisors were pretty much sleeping. If it was an alarming amount it means that the people that were hiring them were pretty lax when they interviewed them for hiring. I have been in many european hospitals, why in there there has never been the case?
Drug testing is not a qualification. It falls under the criminal record since drugs are illegal. If a criminal record is clean there is no reason for drug testing no? And if your medical records show that your body works ok, why invade more? The employer has rights but so does a person. Such "qualifications" breach a persons rights but also their dignity. It's the same thing I told the interviewer of mine when I was applying for a US visa, when one of the questions was "Are you a pimp and/or a prostitute?"
To the third paragraph. What about people then in detox centers? Technically speaking they would be disqualified AND the whole thing would be added to their permanent record. Right of privacy exists for such reasons also. There could be other methods of checking how they spend their welfare also less invading.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
The founders also put anything about the privacy of a person? Because if they put a clause that you have the right to have a gattling gun I am pretty sure they would have thought of that too. I find it at the very least inexcusable that any company or the state, performs drug tests anyway. Why then do you pay for the police or detox centers? And apart of that it is degrading to most people. Personally I find it a huge breach on the right of privacy but also an inability to keep a check on the drug addicts.
I disagree. Because a company has a right to know that their workers are competent. In many jobs an employee can cause death or injury to another employee by being under the infuence of any substance. Pilots have many lives depending on them, doctors have lives depending on them, airplane mechanics, crane operators have lives depending on them.
If these people can afford to support a drug habit they can use that money to buy their own food. If they cannot afford drugs or food, this should not be an issue. People are actually using government funds to buy their drugs and it is not right for tax payers to be forced to pay for this.
I agree with part of your logic, but the end doesn't justify the means.
For companies. If the employee has a clean criminal record I see no reason to breach his or her privacy. What you are saying here is that it's ok to take pre emptive strikes against threats. That's where I disagree. There are plenty of ways that are not invasive including psycological testing that can give quite accurate information on a subject without breaching his rights and above all his dignity. In Europe it was never an issue why it has been the case in US?
If people are drug users is the issue. I disagree in taking the right of privacy with just an "If". If they have a record or they have been arrested then yes by all means remove them from welfare. Fund better the police and remove its corruption to be able to work drug cases better. But invading basic rights such as this opens a new can of worms.
As I wrote in the previous post, someone can use that argument to perform mental tests to people, to see if they are capable of owning guns. See here how 2 rights are being breached?
Aparently you have never worked in the medical field ... I was very grateful when they started testing the nurses... so many tested positive ( primarily speed and painkillers) and were taken off the floor. It is very dangerous to have people working under the influence when lives are at stake, and yes it was an alarming amount of them at the time.
I think that any employer has the right to have this as a qualification for the job along with any other qualification they deem necessary to do the job. Just as jobs require degrees, knowledge, ability.... they should have the ability to determine who they have working for them.
I don;t think the government should go around drug testing everyone.. far from it, but in order to qualify for benefits because you claim you are too poor to afford food, you would be too poor to afford drugs as well, so that shouldn;t be an issue right?
No I have never worked in the medical field. But I am in a family of docs and teachers so my experience is based from that. If a person is working under the influence at that time, it's the job of the supervisor to make sure that's not the case. I don't know how US hospitals work, but from my perspective it seems the supervisors were pretty much sleeping. If it was an alarming amount it means that the people that were hiring them were pretty lax when they interviewed them for hiring. I have been in many european hospitals, why in there there has never been the case?
Drug testing is not a qualification. It falls under the criminal record since drugs are illegal. If a criminal record is clean there is no reason for drug testing no? And if your medical records show that your body works ok, why invade more? The employer has rights but so does a person. Such "qualifications" breach a persons rights but also their dignity. It's the same thing I told the interviewer of mine when I was applying for a US visa, when one of the questions was "Are you a pimp and/or a prostitute?"
To the third paragraph. What about people then in detox centers? Technically speaking they would be disqualified AND the whole thing would be added to their permanent record. Right of privacy exists for such reasons also. There could be other methods of checking how they spend their welfare also less invading.
I disagree considering most of the people I have known that used drugs never had a criminal record. It is a qualification to have drug and alcohol testing for high risk jobs. Alcohol testing is taking place already, and alcohol is legal. Their right to privacy for past actions should have no affect on this. Testing pilots prior to flights is not an invasion of privacy, far from it is a means to protect their paying customers. Certain levels of security risk jobs such as labs where testing for highly contagious diseases past criminal records ARE used to determine qualification as a means of safety. They also do Psychiatric evaluations. Employers have the right, and the obligation to ensure the safety of not only their staff but the general public.
Like I said before I do not think the government should go around randomly testing people, but people can choose to be tested by choosing to work at these type of establishments, or if they want to receive government funding. They still very much have the choice to go use drugs, suport themsleves, and live their life as they see fit. I am sure there will always be places that choose not to drug test. This is their choice. It is also the choice of an employer to choose to keep their people safe.
Also it usually takes longer than 30 days for welfare to be approved, so they would have time to get their system clean before they are given their first test. They would still be able to get their food stamps they hand out when they apply.. they jist have to pass a test in 30 days...
Just end welfare. One more example of how socialism eventually destroys other rights and liberties -- in this case, privacy.
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
I don't think it's a function of government to have anything to do with such testing. If, however, those employers in that industry wish to keep their customers safe, it would be sound policy for them to do such testing.
Also basic liability would lead companies to test employees.
The founders also put anything about the privacy of a person? Because if they put a clause that you have the right to have a gattling gun I am pretty sure they would have thought of that too. I find it at the very least inexcusable that any company or the state, performs drug tests anyway. Why then do you pay for the police or detox centers? And apart of that it is degrading to most people. Personally I find it a huge breach on the right of privacy but also an inability to keep a check on the drug addicts.
I disagree. Because a company has a right to know that their workers are competent. In many jobs an employee can cause death or injury to another employee by being under the infuence of any substance. Pilots have many lives depending on them, doctors have lives depending on them, airplane mechanics, crane operators have lives depending on them.
If these people can afford to support a drug habit they can use that money to buy their own food. If they cannot afford drugs or food, this should not be an issue. People are actually using government funds to buy their drugs and it is not right for tax payers to be forced to pay for this.
I agree with part of your logic, but the end doesn't justify the means.
For companies. If the employee has a clean criminal record I see no reason to breach his or her privacy. What you are saying here is that it's ok to take pre emptive strikes against threats. That's where I disagree. There are plenty of ways that are not invasive including psycological testing that can give quite accurate information on a subject without breaching his rights and above all his dignity. In Europe it was never an issue why it has been the case in US?
If people are drug users is the issue. I disagree in taking the right of privacy with just an "If". If they have a record or they have been arrested then yes by all means remove them from welfare. Fund better the police and remove its corruption to be able to work drug cases better. But invading basic rights such as this opens a new can of worms.
As I wrote in the previous post, someone can use that argument to perform mental tests to people, to see if they are capable of owning guns. See here how 2 rights are being breached?
Aparently you have never worked in the medical field ... I was very grateful when they started testing the nurses... so many tested positive ( primarily speed and painkillers) and were taken off the floor. It is very dangerous to have people working under the influence when lives are at stake, and yes it was an alarming amount of them at the time.
I think that any employer has the right to have this as a qualification for the job along with any other qualification they deem necessary to do the job. Just as jobs require degrees, knowledge, ability.... they should have the ability to determine who they have working for them.
I don;t think the government should go around drug testing everyone.. far from it, but in order to qualify for benefits because you claim you are too poor to afford food, you would be too poor to afford drugs as well, so that shouldn;t be an issue right?
No I have never worked in the medical field. But I am in a family of docs and teachers so my experience is based from that. If a person is working under the influence at that time, it's the job of the supervisor to make sure that's not the case. I don't know how US hospitals work, but from my perspective it seems the supervisors were pretty much sleeping. If it was an alarming amount it means that the people that were hiring them were pretty lax when they interviewed them for hiring. I have been in many european hospitals, why in there there has never been the case?
Drug testing is not a qualification. It falls under the criminal record since drugs are illegal. If a criminal record is clean there is no reason for drug testing no? And if your medical records show that your body works ok, why invade more? The employer has rights but so does a person. Such "qualifications" breach a persons rights but also their dignity. It's the same thing I told the interviewer of mine when I was applying for a US visa, when one of the questions was "Are you a pimp and/or a prostitute?"
To the third paragraph. What about people then in detox centers? Technically speaking they would be disqualified AND the whole thing would be added to their permanent record. Right of privacy exists for such reasons also. There could be other methods of checking how they spend their welfare also less invading.
I disagree considering most of the people I have known that used drugs never had a criminal record. It is a qualification to have drug and alcohol testing for high risk jobs. Alcohol testing is taking place already, and alcohol is legal. Their right to privacy for past actions should have no affect on this. Testing pilots prior to flights is not an invasion of privacy, far from it is a means to protect their paying customers. Certain levels of security risk jobs such as labs where testing for highly contagious diseases past criminal records ARE used to determine qualification as a means of safety. They also do Psychiatric evaluations. Employers have the right, and the obligation to ensure the safety of not only their staff but the general public.
Like I said before I do not think the government should go around randomly testing people, but people can choose to be tested by choosing to work at these type of establishments, or if they want to receive government funding. They still very much have the choice to go use drugs, suport themsleves, and live their life as they see fit. I am sure there will always be places that choose not to drug test. This is their choice. It is also the choice of an employer to choose to keep their people safe.
Although I can see and agree with high risk jobs such as docs or pilots (tbh they should do it voluntarily after all out of a sense of pride for the jobs). But such jobs are the exception rather than the rule.
Practically speaking most jobs do check their employees, so a person that doesn't want his privacy breached will have very few job opportunities. Basically rights are sacrificed for "safety", from what I see at least. If the employer cares about safety also why doesn't he ask if someone carries a gun with him?
It's one thing imo to ask for a medical record or a medical evaluation and another to ask for drug test. It may seem like little thing but it's not. It reflects how a society views a persons rights imo.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Just end welfare. One more example of how socialism eventually destroys other rights and liberties -- in this case, privacy.
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
I don't think it's a function of government to have anything to do with such testing. If, however, those employers in that industry wish to keep their customers safe, it would be sound policy for them to do such testing.
Also basic liability would lead companies to test employees.
Now testing may be necessary in high risk government jobs, or to qualify for government funds.. since I don't think that we can get rid of welfare all together, (Would be nice, but I am not seeing really happen) but this would greatly reduce the number of people we have on welfare for extended periods of time, thus lowering the costs.. which I think for the time being anything we can do to lower the costs would be a good thing.
Although I can see and agree with high risk jobs such as docs or pilots (tbh they should do it voluntarily after all out of a sense of pride for the jobs). But such jobs are the exception rather than the rule. Practically speaking most jobs do check their employees, so a person that doesn't want his privacy breached will have very few job opportunities. Basically rights are sacrificed for "safety", from what I see at least. If the employer cares about safety also why doesn't he ask if someone carries a gun with him? It's one thing imo to ask for a medical record or a medical evaluation and another to ask for drug test. It may seem like little thing but it's not. It reflects how a society views a persons rights imo.
LOL .. some jobs require you to carry a gun Some jobs do not allow you to carry a gun.. a gun is used for defense and is not impairing in any way. Drugs are impairing. It is often hard to tell if someone has red eyes because they did not have enough rest, just worked 123hr work week ( like I have) or are high as a kite. It is not so easy to tell all the time. There are no rights being sacrificed as I see it since you can go work for yourself if you have to, no one is stopping you. If you can work for someone else you can work for yourself. That is up to you. You have the freedom to go work at one of the jobs that drug test, go work at a job who doesn;t or work for yourself.. only person stopping someone is themselves.
I have no idea why people think that companies have an obligation to " give " people jobs. They have no more obligation to provide jobs than you do to work for them. You decide what you want to do with your life, no one else. They decide what they do with their company, no one else.
2. Some people are unable to get food assistance because their pee is funny.
3. These people band together forming a commune to survive in this new world.
4. Helicopters are deployed to raid this "anti government camp" on the pretense that many known drug users are located there.
Anyway, I think we're going to get a chance to see what happens when some people can't qualify for a government food ration in the near future. Then we'll see who is waiting in the wings to swoop in and help.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
Hypothetical Scenario #2 1. The economy collapses, for real this time.
2. Some people are unable to get food assistance because their pee is funny.
3. These people band together forming a commune to survive in this new world.
4. Helicopters are deployed to raid this "anti government camp" on the pretense that many known drug users are located there. Anyway, I think we're going to get a chance to see what happens when some people can't qualify for a government food ration in the near future. Then we'll see who is waiting in the wings to swoop in and help.
why would their pee be funny 30 days after they applied when they knew it would affect their benefits. are you proposing we reward stupidity?
lol@ your helicopters coming after them .. that would just be silly .. I think the helicopters would be more concerned with the people marching on the white house with pitchforks .. lol
They only send in the choppers on innocent civilians when there is nothing better to do .. in that senario though they would be a hellofalot busier dealing with the people that were pissed the #%^$# off at them lol
Just end welfare. One more example of how socialism eventually destroys other rights and liberties -- in this case, privacy.
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
I don't think it's a function of government to have anything to do with such testing. If, however, those employers in that industry wish to keep their customers safe, it would be sound policy for them to do such testing.
Also basic liability would lead companies to test employees.
Now testing may be necessary in high risk government jobs, or to qualify for government funds.. since I don't think that we can get rid of welfare all together, (Would be nice, but I am not seeing really happen) but this would greatly reduce the number of people we have on welfare for extended periods of time, thus lowering the costs.. which I think for the time being anything we can do to lower the costs would be a good thing.
Well, since it's not my business to tell the people I give charity to how they should spend the charity I give them, I feel it is best that IF you are going to be giving charity, you don't poke and prod them at the same time.
I feel such treatment of people simply abhorrent, and thus can't sanction my government doing so.
Just another reason that government shouldn't be in the charity business.
Just end welfare. One more example of how socialism eventually destroys other rights and liberties -- in this case, privacy.
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
I don't think it's a function of government to have anything to do with such testing. If, however, those employers in that industry wish to keep their customers safe, it would be sound policy for them to do such testing.
Also basic liability would lead companies to test employees.
Now testing may be necessary in high risk government jobs, or to qualify for government funds.. since I don't think that we can get rid of welfare all together, (Would be nice, but I am not seeing really happen) but this would greatly reduce the number of people we have on welfare for extended periods of time, thus lowering the costs.. which I think for the time being anything we can do to lower the costs would be a good thing.
Well, since it's not my business to tell the people I give charity to how they should spend the charity I give them, I feel it is best that IF you are going to be giving charity, you don't poke and prod them at the same time.
I feel such treatment of people simply abhorrent, and thus can't sanction my government doing so.
Just another reason that government shouldn't be in the charity business.
I agree that it should not be in the charity business. But I think this would be a good step in getting the government out of the charity business ... at least reduce it.
Although I can see and agree with high risk jobs such as docs or pilots (tbh they should do it voluntarily after all out of a sense of pride for the jobs). But such jobs are the exception rather than the rule. Practically speaking most jobs do check their employees, so a person that doesn't want his privacy breached will have very few job opportunities. Basically rights are sacrificed for "safety", from what I see at least. If the employer cares about safety also why doesn't he ask if someone carries a gun with him? It's one thing imo to ask for a medical record or a medical evaluation and another to ask for drug test. It may seem like little thing but it's not. It reflects how a society views a persons rights imo.
LOL .. some jobs require you to carry a gun Some jobs do not allow you to carry a gun.. a gun is used for defense and is not impairing in any way. Drugs are impairing. It is often hard to tell if someone has red eyes because they did not have enough rest, just worked 123hr work week ( like I have) or are high as a kite. It is not so easy to tell all the time. There are no rights being sacrificed as I see it since you can go work for yourself if you have to, no one is stopping you. If you can work for someone else you can work for yourself. That is up to you. You have the freedom to go work at one of the jobs that drug test, go work at a job who doesn;t or work for yourself.. only person stopping someone is themselves.
I have no idea why people think that companies have an obligation to " give " people jobs. They have no more obligation to provide jobs than you do to work for them. You decide what you want to do with your life, no one else. They decide what they do with their company, no one else.
A gun can be used for defense also. You are not naive and we both know it:P If someone is angered an instictual response is to grab it if he has it. Not in all cases but a lot of them for sure. So it can be as impairing as anything else. Unless the phrase "going postal" has a different history than the one I know:P
It's not as easy as you make it seem you know. Some things are simply based on luck also not only on "how much you want it".
No person that I know at least, believes that companies are obligated to "give" people jobs, nor I implied or suggested that. But there is always the issue on what breaches people's rights and what is not, and also that such things can and are being abused.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
LOL .. some jobs require you to carry a gun Some jobs do not allow you to carry a gun.. a gun is used for defense and is not impairing in any way. Drugs are impairing. It is often hard to tell if someone has red eyes because they did not have enough rest, just worked 123hr work week ( like I have) or are high as a kite. It is not so easy to tell all the time. There are no rights being sacrificed as I see it since you can go work for yourself if you have to, no one is stopping you. If you can work for someone else you can work for yourself. That is up to you. You have the freedom to go work at one of the jobs that drug test, go work at a job who doesn;t or work for yourself.. only person stopping someone is themselves. I have no idea why people think that companies have an obligation to " give " people jobs. They have no more obligation to provide jobs than you do to work for them. You decide what you want to do with your life, no one else. They decide what they do with their company, no one else.
A gun can be used for defense also. You are not naive and we both know it:P If someone is angered an instictual response is to grab it if he has it. Not in all cases but a lot of them for sure. So it can be as impairing as anything else. Unless the phrase "going postal" has a different history than the one I know:P
It's not as easy as you make it seem you know. Some things are simply based on luck also not only on "how much you want it".
No person that I know at least, believes that companies are obligated to "give" people jobs, nor I implied or suggested that. But there is always the issue on what breaches people's rights and what is not, and also that such things can and are being abused.
Like I said, a gun is not always allowed at work, and in most cases it is not allowed to be brought with you. Though we actually have a school district that is allowing teachers to have firearms now.
As long as it is not a law requiring drug testing for jobs it is up to the employers to decide how they want to run their business. Just as it is up to the right of any person to not work for that company. Drug testing can be expensive, not all companies are willing to put out the money for this, so there should always be companies that do not spend the money on it. It should always be a choice.
Just as it should be the choice of the tax payers that they want to require drug testing for welfare, which I do believe the case since most people in this country are not content paying for someone elses drug habit, even the ones who use drugs themselves don;t care to pay for someone else to. It is a luxury not a necessity.
LOL .. some jobs require you to carry a gun Some jobs do not allow you to carry a gun.. a gun is used for defense and is not impairing in any way. Drugs are impairing. It is often hard to tell if someone has red eyes because they did not have enough rest, just worked 123hr work week ( like I have) or are high as a kite. It is not so easy to tell all the time. There are no rights being sacrificed as I see it since you can go work for yourself if you have to, no one is stopping you. If you can work for someone else you can work for yourself. That is up to you. You have the freedom to go work at one of the jobs that drug test, go work at a job who doesn;t or work for yourself.. only person stopping someone is themselves. I have no idea why people think that companies have an obligation to " give " people jobs. They have no more obligation to provide jobs than you do to work for them. You decide what you want to do with your life, no one else. They decide what they do with their company, no one else.
A gun can be used for defense also. You are not naive and we both know it:P If someone is angered an instictual response is to grab it if he has it. Not in all cases but a lot of them for sure. So it can be as impairing as anything else. Unless the phrase "going postal" has a different history than the one I know:P
It's not as easy as you make it seem you know. Some things are simply based on luck also not only on "how much you want it".
No person that I know at least, believes that companies are obligated to "give" people jobs, nor I implied or suggested that. But there is always the issue on what breaches people's rights and what is not, and also that such things can and are being abused.
Like I said, a gun is not always allowed at work, and in most cases it is not allowed to be brought with you. Though we actually have a school district that is allowing teachers to have firearms now.
As long as it is not a law requiring drug testing for jobs it is up to the employers to decide how they want to run their business. Just as it is up to the right of any person to not work for that company. Drug testing can be expensive, not all companies are willing to put out the money for this, so there should always be companies that do not spend the money on it. It should always be a choice.
Just as it should be the choice of the tax payers that they want to require drug testing for welfare, which I do believe the case since most people in this country are not content paying for someone elses drug habit, even the ones who use drugs themselves don;t care to pay for someone else to. It is a luxury not a necessity.
Understood loud and clear.
On a side note, since when welfare is considered "charity"?
From what I know at least the point of welfare is to provide for people in a tough situation, until they can provide for themselves again.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Hypothetical Scenario #3 1. A man is injured during a government false flag event.
2. Due to the crisis he is unable to get medical attention and turns to looting an abandoned drug store.
3. A week later all the caned food has been consumed and the masses flock to the government for nourishment.
2. This man is unable to get food assistance because his pee is funny.
3. He and others band together forming a commune to survive in this new world.
4. Helicopters are deployed to raid this "anti government camp" on the pretense that many known drug users are located there.
LOL do you sit around thinking up hypothetical scenarios all day?
I got one for you:
1. A bunch of drugged out junkies were refused by welfare and they start rioting in a neighborhood.
2. a bunch of pissed of neighbors come out and shoot them all and claim self defense, and they are all witnesses for each other.
3. the end.
4. The bodies of the junkies rise up as zombies because of an unfortunate reaction of the drugs.
5. They infect more people and eat the neighbors.
6. US is being overrun by zombies.
7. Evil Ernie finally commences megadeath.
8. The end?
Now that's a worthwhile scenario:D
Yay! no helicopters in that one ... you like helicopters don;t you? I like the idea of multiple uses for hypodermic syringes... you know you can put ANYthing in those things ... and the mere presence of them can invoke terror lol
Like I said, a gun is not always allowed at work, and in most cases it is not allowed to be brought with you. Though we actually have a school district that is allowing teachers to have firearms now.
As long as it is not a law requiring drug testing for jobs it is up to the employers to decide how they want to run their business. Just as it is up to the right of any person to not work for that company. Drug testing can be expensive, not all companies are willing to put out the money for this, so there should always be companies that do not spend the money on it. It should always be a choice. Just as it should be the choice of the tax payers that they want to require drug testing for welfare, which I do believe the case since most people in this country are not content paying for someone elses drug habit, even the ones who use drugs themselves don;t care to pay for someone else to. It is a luxury not a necessity.
Understood loud and clear.
On a side note, since when welfare is considered "charity"?
From what I know at least the point of welfare is to provide for people in a tough situation, until they can provide for themselves again.
Anything you did not earn is chairty, now if it was meant to be paid back later as a loan, that would be different. but since it is not paid back it is charity.
Like I said, a gun is not always allowed at work, and in most cases it is not allowed to be brought with you. Though we actually have a school district that is allowing teachers to have firearms now.
As long as it is not a law requiring drug testing for jobs it is up to the employers to decide how they want to run their business. Just as it is up to the right of any person to not work for that company. Drug testing can be expensive, not all companies are willing to put out the money for this, so there should always be companies that do not spend the money on it. It should always be a choice. Just as it should be the choice of the tax payers that they want to require drug testing for welfare, which I do believe the case since most people in this country are not content paying for someone elses drug habit, even the ones who use drugs themselves don;t care to pay for someone else to. It is a luxury not a necessity.
Understood loud and clear.
On a side note, since when welfare is considered "charity"?
From what I know at least the point of welfare is to provide for people in a tough situation, until they can provide for themselves again.
Anything you did not earn is chairty, now if it was meant to be paid back later as a loan, that would be different. but since it is not paid back it is charity.
Well technically it is being paid back through taxes when they get a job or through their job they have, so that's why I wondered.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Hypothetical Scenario #3 1. A man is injured during a government false flag event.
2. Due to the crisis he is unable to get medical attention and turns to looting an abandoned drug store.
3. A week later all the caned food has been consumed and the masses flock to the government for nourishment.
2. This man is unable to get food assistance because his pee is funny.
3. He and others band together forming a commune to survive in this new world.
4. Helicopters are deployed to raid this "anti government camp" on the pretense that many known drug users are located there.
LOL do you sit around thinking up hypothetical scenarios all day?
I got one for you:
1. A bunch of drugged out junkies were refused by welfare and they start rioting in a neighborhood.
2. a bunch of pissed of neighbors come out and shoot them all and claim self defense, and they are all witnesses for each other.
3. the end.
4. The bodies of the junkies rise up as zombies because of an unfortunate reaction of the drugs.
5. They infect more people and eat the neighbors.
6. US is being overrun by zombies.
7. Evil Ernie finally commences megadeath.
8. The end?
Now that's a worthwhile scenario:D
Yay! no helicopters in that one ... you like helicopters don;t you? I like the idea of multiple uses for hypodermic syringes... you know you can put ANYthing in those things ... and the mere presence of them can invoke terror lol
Zombie doctors with a hypodermic syringe:P Now that's an image that would strike terror XD
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Anything you did not earn is chairty, now if it was meant to be paid back later as a loan, that would be different. but since it is not paid back it is charity.
Well technically it is being paid back through taxes when they get a job or through their job they have, so that's why I wondered.
No, because usually they take out wayy more in welfare than they pay in taxes.. in most cases it never gets paid back, and that is the reason welfare is such a financial burden on this country.
Hypothetical Scenario #3 1. A man is injured during a government false flag event.
2. Due to the crisis he is unable to get medical attention and turns to looting an abandoned drug store.
3. A week later all the caned food has been consumed and the masses flock to the government for nourishment.
2. This man is unable to get food assistance because his pee is funny.
3. He and others band together forming a commune to survive in this new world.
4. Helicopters are deployed to raid this "anti government camp" on the pretense that many known drug users are located there.
LOL do you sit around thinking up hypothetical scenarios all day?
I got one for you:
1. A bunch of drugged out junkies were refused by welfare and they start rioting in a neighborhood.
2. a bunch of pissed of neighbors come out and shoot them all and claim self defense, and they are all witnesses for each other.
3. the end.
4. The bodies of the junkies rise up as zombies because of an unfortunate reaction of the drugs.
5. They infect more people and eat the neighbors.
6. US is being overrun by zombies.
7. Evil Ernie finally commences megadeath.
8. The end?
Now that's a worthwhile scenario:D
Yay! no helicopters in that one ... you like helicopters don;t you? I like the idea of multiple uses for hypodermic syringes... you know you can put ANYthing in those things ... and the mere presence of them can invoke terror lol
Zombie doctors with a hypodermic syringe:P Now that's an image that would strike terror XD
Comments
Sounds good to me, the bitch shouldn't have puff puffed, should have just passed.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
I disagree. Because a company has a right to know that their workers are competent. In many jobs an employee can cause death or injury to another employee by being under the infuence of any substance. Pilots have many lives depending on them, doctors have lives depending on them, airplane mechanics, crane operators have lives depending on them.
If these people can afford to support a drug habit they can use that money to buy their own food. If they cannot afford drugs or food, this should not be an issue. People are actually using government funds to buy their drugs and it is not right for tax payers to be forced to pay for this.
I agree with part of your logic, but the end doesn't justify the means.
For companies. If the employee has a clean criminal record I see no reason to breach his or her privacy. What you are saying here is that it's ok to take pre emptive strikes against threats. That's where I disagree. There are plenty of ways that are not invasive including psycological testing that can give quite accurate information on a subject without breaching his rights and above all his dignity. In Europe it was never an issue why it has been the case in US?
If people are drug users is the issue. I disagree in taking the right of privacy with just an "If". If they have a record or they have been arrested then yes by all means remove them from welfare. Fund better the police and remove its corruption to be able to work drug cases better. But invading basic rights such as this opens a new can of worms.
As I wrote in the previous post, someone can use that argument to perform mental tests to people, to see if they are capable of owning guns. See here how 2 rights are being breached?
Aparently you have never worked in the medical field ... I was very grateful when they started testing the nurses... so many tested positive ( primarily speed and painkillers) and were taken off the floor. It is very dangerous to have people working under the influence when lives are at stake, and yes it was an alarming amount of them at the time.
I think that any employer has the right to have this as a qualification for the job along with any other qualification they deem necessary to do the job. Just as jobs require degrees, knowledge, ability.... they should have the ability to determine who they have working for them.
I don;t think the government should go around drug testing everyone.. far from it, but in order to qualify for benefits because you claim you are too poor to afford food, you would be too poor to afford drugs as well, so that shouldn;t be an issue right?
No I have never worked in the medical field. But I am in a family of docs and teachers so my experience is based from that. If a person is working under the influence at that time, it's the job of the supervisor to make sure that's not the case. I don't know how US hospitals work, but from my perspective it seems the supervisors were pretty much sleeping. If it was an alarming amount it means that the people that were hiring them were pretty lax when they interviewed them for hiring. I have been in many european hospitals, why in there there has never been the case?
Drug testing is not a qualification. It falls under the criminal record since drugs are illegal. If a criminal record is clean there is no reason for drug testing no? And if your medical records show that your body works ok, why invade more? The employer has rights but so does a person. Such "qualifications" breach a persons rights but also their dignity. It's the same thing I told the interviewer of mine when I was applying for a US visa, when one of the questions was "Are you a pimp and/or a prostitute?"
To the third paragraph. What about people then in detox centers? Technically speaking they would be disqualified AND the whole thing would be added to their permanent record. Right of privacy exists for such reasons also. There could be other methods of checking how they spend their welfare also less invading.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I disagree. Because a company has a right to know that their workers are competent. In many jobs an employee can cause death or injury to another employee by being under the infuence of any substance. Pilots have many lives depending on them, doctors have lives depending on them, airplane mechanics, crane operators have lives depending on them.
If these people can afford to support a drug habit they can use that money to buy their own food. If they cannot afford drugs or food, this should not be an issue. People are actually using government funds to buy their drugs and it is not right for tax payers to be forced to pay for this.
I agree with part of your logic, but the end doesn't justify the means.
For companies. If the employee has a clean criminal record I see no reason to breach his or her privacy. What you are saying here is that it's ok to take pre emptive strikes against threats. That's where I disagree. There are plenty of ways that are not invasive including psycological testing that can give quite accurate information on a subject without breaching his rights and above all his dignity. In Europe it was never an issue why it has been the case in US?
If people are drug users is the issue. I disagree in taking the right of privacy with just an "If". If they have a record or they have been arrested then yes by all means remove them from welfare. Fund better the police and remove its corruption to be able to work drug cases better. But invading basic rights such as this opens a new can of worms.
As I wrote in the previous post, someone can use that argument to perform mental tests to people, to see if they are capable of owning guns. See here how 2 rights are being breached?
Aparently you have never worked in the medical field ... I was very grateful when they started testing the nurses... so many tested positive ( primarily speed and painkillers) and were taken off the floor. It is very dangerous to have people working under the influence when lives are at stake, and yes it was an alarming amount of them at the time.
I think that any employer has the right to have this as a qualification for the job along with any other qualification they deem necessary to do the job. Just as jobs require degrees, knowledge, ability.... they should have the ability to determine who they have working for them.
I don;t think the government should go around drug testing everyone.. far from it, but in order to qualify for benefits because you claim you are too poor to afford food, you would be too poor to afford drugs as well, so that shouldn;t be an issue right?
No I have never worked in the medical field. But I am in a family of docs and teachers so my experience is based from that. If a person is working under the influence at that time, it's the job of the supervisor to make sure that's not the case. I don't know how US hospitals work, but from my perspective it seems the supervisors were pretty much sleeping. If it was an alarming amount it means that the people that were hiring them were pretty lax when they interviewed them for hiring. I have been in many european hospitals, why in there there has never been the case?
Drug testing is not a qualification. It falls under the criminal record since drugs are illegal. If a criminal record is clean there is no reason for drug testing no? And if your medical records show that your body works ok, why invade more? The employer has rights but so does a person. Such "qualifications" breach a persons rights but also their dignity. It's the same thing I told the interviewer of mine when I was applying for a US visa, when one of the questions was "Are you a pimp and/or a prostitute?"
To the third paragraph. What about people then in detox centers? Technically speaking they would be disqualified AND the whole thing would be added to their permanent record. Right of privacy exists for such reasons also. There could be other methods of checking how they spend their welfare also less invading.
I disagree considering most of the people I have known that used drugs never had a criminal record. It is a qualification to have drug and alcohol testing for high risk jobs. Alcohol testing is taking place already, and alcohol is legal. Their right to privacy for past actions should have no affect on this. Testing pilots prior to flights is not an invasion of privacy, far from it is a means to protect their paying customers. Certain levels of security risk jobs such as labs where testing for highly contagious diseases past criminal records ARE used to determine qualification as a means of safety. They also do Psychiatric evaluations. Employers have the right, and the obligation to ensure the safety of not only their staff but the general public.
Like I said before I do not think the government should go around randomly testing people, but people can choose to be tested by choosing to work at these type of establishments, or if they want to receive government funding. They still very much have the choice to go use drugs, suport themsleves, and live their life as they see fit. I am sure there will always be places that choose not to drug test. This is their choice. It is also the choice of an employer to choose to keep their people safe.
Also it usually takes longer than 30 days for welfare to be approved, so they would have time to get their system clean before they are given their first test. They would still be able to get their food stamps they hand out when they apply.. they jist have to pass a test in 30 days...
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
I don't think it's a function of government to have anything to do with such testing. If, however, those employers in that industry wish to keep their customers safe, it would be sound policy for them to do such testing.
Also basic liability would lead companies to test employees.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I disagree. Because a company has a right to know that their workers are competent. In many jobs an employee can cause death or injury to another employee by being under the infuence of any substance. Pilots have many lives depending on them, doctors have lives depending on them, airplane mechanics, crane operators have lives depending on them.
If these people can afford to support a drug habit they can use that money to buy their own food. If they cannot afford drugs or food, this should not be an issue. People are actually using government funds to buy their drugs and it is not right for tax payers to be forced to pay for this.
I agree with part of your logic, but the end doesn't justify the means.
For companies. If the employee has a clean criminal record I see no reason to breach his or her privacy. What you are saying here is that it's ok to take pre emptive strikes against threats. That's where I disagree. There are plenty of ways that are not invasive including psycological testing that can give quite accurate information on a subject without breaching his rights and above all his dignity. In Europe it was never an issue why it has been the case in US?
If people are drug users is the issue. I disagree in taking the right of privacy with just an "If". If they have a record or they have been arrested then yes by all means remove them from welfare. Fund better the police and remove its corruption to be able to work drug cases better. But invading basic rights such as this opens a new can of worms.
As I wrote in the previous post, someone can use that argument to perform mental tests to people, to see if they are capable of owning guns. See here how 2 rights are being breached?
Aparently you have never worked in the medical field ... I was very grateful when they started testing the nurses... so many tested positive ( primarily speed and painkillers) and were taken off the floor. It is very dangerous to have people working under the influence when lives are at stake, and yes it was an alarming amount of them at the time.
I think that any employer has the right to have this as a qualification for the job along with any other qualification they deem necessary to do the job. Just as jobs require degrees, knowledge, ability.... they should have the ability to determine who they have working for them.
I don;t think the government should go around drug testing everyone.. far from it, but in order to qualify for benefits because you claim you are too poor to afford food, you would be too poor to afford drugs as well, so that shouldn;t be an issue right?
No I have never worked in the medical field. But I am in a family of docs and teachers so my experience is based from that. If a person is working under the influence at that time, it's the job of the supervisor to make sure that's not the case. I don't know how US hospitals work, but from my perspective it seems the supervisors were pretty much sleeping. If it was an alarming amount it means that the people that were hiring them were pretty lax when they interviewed them for hiring. I have been in many european hospitals, why in there there has never been the case?
Drug testing is not a qualification. It falls under the criminal record since drugs are illegal. If a criminal record is clean there is no reason for drug testing no? And if your medical records show that your body works ok, why invade more? The employer has rights but so does a person. Such "qualifications" breach a persons rights but also their dignity. It's the same thing I told the interviewer of mine when I was applying for a US visa, when one of the questions was "Are you a pimp and/or a prostitute?"
To the third paragraph. What about people then in detox centers? Technically speaking they would be disqualified AND the whole thing would be added to their permanent record. Right of privacy exists for such reasons also. There could be other methods of checking how they spend their welfare also less invading.
I disagree considering most of the people I have known that used drugs never had a criminal record. It is a qualification to have drug and alcohol testing for high risk jobs. Alcohol testing is taking place already, and alcohol is legal. Their right to privacy for past actions should have no affect on this. Testing pilots prior to flights is not an invasion of privacy, far from it is a means to protect their paying customers. Certain levels of security risk jobs such as labs where testing for highly contagious diseases past criminal records ARE used to determine qualification as a means of safety. They also do Psychiatric evaluations. Employers have the right, and the obligation to ensure the safety of not only their staff but the general public.
Like I said before I do not think the government should go around randomly testing people, but people can choose to be tested by choosing to work at these type of establishments, or if they want to receive government funding. They still very much have the choice to go use drugs, suport themsleves, and live their life as they see fit. I am sure there will always be places that choose not to drug test. This is their choice. It is also the choice of an employer to choose to keep their people safe.
Although I can see and agree with high risk jobs such as docs or pilots (tbh they should do it voluntarily after all out of a sense of pride for the jobs). But such jobs are the exception rather than the rule.
Practically speaking most jobs do check their employees, so a person that doesn't want his privacy breached will have very few job opportunities. Basically rights are sacrificed for "safety", from what I see at least. If the employer cares about safety also why doesn't he ask if someone carries a gun with him?
It's one thing imo to ask for a medical record or a medical evaluation and another to ask for drug test. It may seem like little thing but it's not. It reflects how a society views a persons rights imo.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
I don't think it's a function of government to have anything to do with such testing. If, however, those employers in that industry wish to keep their customers safe, it would be sound policy for them to do such testing.
Also basic liability would lead companies to test employees.
LOL .. some jobs require you to carry a gun
Some jobs do not allow you to carry a gun.. a gun is used for defense and is not impairing in any way. Drugs are impairing. It is often hard to tell if someone has red eyes because they did not have enough rest, just worked 123hr work week ( like I have) or are high as a kite. It is not so easy to tell all the time. There are no rights being sacrificed as I see it since you can go work for yourself if you have to, no one is stopping you. If you can work for someone else you can work for yourself. That is up to you. You have the freedom to go work at one of the jobs that drug test, go work at a job who doesn;t or work for yourself.. only person stopping someone is themselves.
I have no idea why people think that companies have an obligation to " give " people jobs. They have no more obligation to provide jobs than you do to work for them. You decide what you want to do with your life, no one else. They decide what they do with their company, no one else.
Hypothetical Scenario #2
1. The economy collapses, for real this time.
2. Some people are unable to get food assistance because their pee is funny.
3. These people band together forming a commune to survive in this new world.
4. Helicopters are deployed to raid this "anti government camp" on the pretense that many known drug users are located there.
Anyway, I think we're going to get a chance to see what happens when some people can't qualify for a government food ration in the near future. Then we'll see who is waiting in the wings to swoop in and help.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
why would their pee be funny 30 days after they applied when they knew it would affect their benefits. are you proposing we reward stupidity?
lol@ your helicopters coming after them .. that would just be silly .. I think the helicopters would be more concerned with the people marching on the white house with pitchforks .. lol
They only send in the choppers on innocent civilians when there is nothing better to do .. in that senario though they would be a hellofalot busier dealing with the people that were pissed the #%^$# off at them lol
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
I don't think it's a function of government to have anything to do with such testing. If, however, those employers in that industry wish to keep their customers safe, it would be sound policy for them to do such testing.
Also basic liability would lead companies to test employees.
Well, since it's not my business to tell the people I give charity to how they should spend the charity I give them, I feel it is best that IF you are going to be giving charity, you don't poke and prod them at the same time.
I feel such treatment of people simply abhorrent, and thus can't sanction my government doing so.
Just another reason that government shouldn't be in the charity business.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Hypothetical Scenario #3
1. A man is injured during a government false flag event.
2. Due to the crisis he is unable to get medical attention and turns to looting an abandoned drug store.
3. A week later all the caned food has been consumed and the masses flock to the government for nourishment.
2. This man is unable to get food assistance because his pee is funny.
3. He and others band together forming a commune to survive in this new world.
4. Helicopters are deployed to raid this "anti government camp" on the pretense that many known drug users are located there.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
Now I don;t think that the government should be drug testing all citizens against their will .. no far from that. But think about jobs that many lives are at risk.. how do you feel about those postitons? Pilots, nurses, doctors, heavy machine operators, airplane mechanics.. all of these things could be devestating left unchecked.
I don't think it's a function of government to have anything to do with such testing. If, however, those employers in that industry wish to keep their customers safe, it would be sound policy for them to do such testing.
Also basic liability would lead companies to test employees.
Well, since it's not my business to tell the people I give charity to how they should spend the charity I give them, I feel it is best that IF you are going to be giving charity, you don't poke and prod them at the same time.
I feel such treatment of people simply abhorrent, and thus can't sanction my government doing so.
Just another reason that government shouldn't be in the charity business.
I agree that it should not be in the charity business. But I think this would be a good step in getting the government out of the charity business ... at least reduce it.
LOL do you sit around thinking up hypothetical scenarios all day?
I got one for you:
1. A bunch of drugged out junkies were refused by welfare and they start rioting in a neighborhood.
2. a bunch of pissed of neighbors come out and shoot them all and claim self defense, and they are all witnesses for each other.
3. the end.
LOL .. some jobs require you to carry a gun
Some jobs do not allow you to carry a gun.. a gun is used for defense and is not impairing in any way. Drugs are impairing. It is often hard to tell if someone has red eyes because they did not have enough rest, just worked 123hr work week ( like I have) or are high as a kite. It is not so easy to tell all the time. There are no rights being sacrificed as I see it since you can go work for yourself if you have to, no one is stopping you. If you can work for someone else you can work for yourself. That is up to you. You have the freedom to go work at one of the jobs that drug test, go work at a job who doesn;t or work for yourself.. only person stopping someone is themselves.
I have no idea why people think that companies have an obligation to " give " people jobs. They have no more obligation to provide jobs than you do to work for them. You decide what you want to do with your life, no one else. They decide what they do with their company, no one else.
A gun can be used for defense also. You are not naive and we both know it:P If someone is angered an instictual response is to grab it if he has it. Not in all cases but a lot of them for sure. So it can be as impairing as anything else. Unless the phrase "going postal" has a different history than the one I know:P
It's not as easy as you make it seem you know. Some things are simply based on luck also not only on "how much you want it".
No person that I know at least, believes that companies are obligated to "give" people jobs, nor I implied or suggested that. But there is always the issue on what breaches people's rights and what is not, and also that such things can and are being abused.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
LOL do you sit around thinking up hypothetical scenarios all day?
I got one for you:
1. A bunch of drugged out junkies were refused by welfare and they start rioting in a neighborhood.
2. a bunch of pissed of neighbors come out and shoot them all and claim self defense, and they are all witnesses for each other.
3. the end.
4. The bodies of the junkies rise up as zombies because of an unfortunate reaction of the drugs.
5. They infect more people and eat the neighbors.
6. US is being overrun by zombies.
7. Evil Ernie finally commences megadeath.
8. The end?
Now that's a worthwhile scenario:D
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
A gun can be used for defense also. You are not naive and we both know it:P If someone is angered an instictual response is to grab it if he has it. Not in all cases but a lot of them for sure. So it can be as impairing as anything else. Unless the phrase "going postal" has a different history than the one I know:P
It's not as easy as you make it seem you know. Some things are simply based on luck also not only on "how much you want it".
No person that I know at least, believes that companies are obligated to "give" people jobs, nor I implied or suggested that. But there is always the issue on what breaches people's rights and what is not, and also that such things can and are being abused.
Like I said, a gun is not always allowed at work, and in most cases it is not allowed to be brought with you. Though we actually have a school district that is allowing teachers to have firearms now.
As long as it is not a law requiring drug testing for jobs it is up to the employers to decide how they want to run their business. Just as it is up to the right of any person to not work for that company. Drug testing can be expensive, not all companies are willing to put out the money for this, so there should always be companies that do not spend the money on it. It should always be a choice.
Just as it should be the choice of the tax payers that they want to require drug testing for welfare, which I do believe the case since most people in this country are not content paying for someone elses drug habit, even the ones who use drugs themselves don;t care to pay for someone else to. It is a luxury not a necessity.
A gun can be used for defense also. You are not naive and we both know it:P If someone is angered an instictual response is to grab it if he has it. Not in all cases but a lot of them for sure. So it can be as impairing as anything else. Unless the phrase "going postal" has a different history than the one I know:P
It's not as easy as you make it seem you know. Some things are simply based on luck also not only on "how much you want it".
No person that I know at least, believes that companies are obligated to "give" people jobs, nor I implied or suggested that. But there is always the issue on what breaches people's rights and what is not, and also that such things can and are being abused.
Like I said, a gun is not always allowed at work, and in most cases it is not allowed to be brought with you. Though we actually have a school district that is allowing teachers to have firearms now.
As long as it is not a law requiring drug testing for jobs it is up to the employers to decide how they want to run their business. Just as it is up to the right of any person to not work for that company. Drug testing can be expensive, not all companies are willing to put out the money for this, so there should always be companies that do not spend the money on it. It should always be a choice.
Just as it should be the choice of the tax payers that they want to require drug testing for welfare, which I do believe the case since most people in this country are not content paying for someone elses drug habit, even the ones who use drugs themselves don;t care to pay for someone else to. It is a luxury not a necessity.
Understood loud and clear.
On a side note, since when welfare is considered "charity"?
From what I know at least the point of welfare is to provide for people in a tough situation, until they can provide for themselves again.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
LOL do you sit around thinking up hypothetical scenarios all day?
I got one for you:
1. A bunch of drugged out junkies were refused by welfare and they start rioting in a neighborhood.
2. a bunch of pissed of neighbors come out and shoot them all and claim self defense, and they are all witnesses for each other.
3. the end.
4. The bodies of the junkies rise up as zombies because of an unfortunate reaction of the drugs.
5. They infect more people and eat the neighbors.
6. US is being overrun by zombies.
7. Evil Ernie finally commences megadeath.
8. The end?
Now that's a worthwhile scenario:D
Yay! no helicopters in that one ... you like helicopters don;t you?
I like the idea of multiple uses for hypodermic syringes... you know you can put ANYthing in those things ... and the mere presence of them can invoke terror lol
Understood loud and clear.
On a side note, since when welfare is considered "charity"?
From what I know at least the point of welfare is to provide for people in a tough situation, until they can provide for themselves again.
Anything you did not earn is chairty, now if it was meant to be paid back later as a loan, that would be different. but since it is not paid back it is charity.
LOL do you sit around thinking up hypothetical scenarios all day?
I got one for you:
1. A bunch of drugged out junkies were refused by welfare and they start rioting in a neighborhood.
2. a bunch of pissed of neighbors come out and shoot them all and claim self defense, and they are all witnesses for each other.
3. the end.
Deploy helicopters or GTFO IMO.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
Understood loud and clear.
On a side note, since when welfare is considered "charity"?
From what I know at least the point of welfare is to provide for people in a tough situation, until they can provide for themselves again.
Anything you did not earn is chairty, now if it was meant to be paid back later as a loan, that would be different. but since it is not paid back it is charity.
Well technically it is being paid back through taxes when they get a job or through their job they have, so that's why I wondered.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
LOL do you sit around thinking up hypothetical scenarios all day?
I got one for you:
1. A bunch of drugged out junkies were refused by welfare and they start rioting in a neighborhood.
2. a bunch of pissed of neighbors come out and shoot them all and claim self defense, and they are all witnesses for each other.
3. the end.
Deploy helicopters or GTFO IMO.
LOL what about helicopters that are armed with hypos? hmmm....
LOL do you sit around thinking up hypothetical scenarios all day?
I got one for you:
1. A bunch of drugged out junkies were refused by welfare and they start rioting in a neighborhood.
2. a bunch of pissed of neighbors come out and shoot them all and claim self defense, and they are all witnesses for each other.
3. the end.
4. The bodies of the junkies rise up as zombies because of an unfortunate reaction of the drugs.
5. They infect more people and eat the neighbors.
6. US is being overrun by zombies.
7. Evil Ernie finally commences megadeath.
8. The end?
Now that's a worthwhile scenario:D
Yay! no helicopters in that one ... you like helicopters don;t you?
I like the idea of multiple uses for hypodermic syringes... you know you can put ANYthing in those things ... and the mere presence of them can invoke terror lol
Zombie doctors with a hypodermic syringe:P Now that's an image that would strike terror XD
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Well technically it is being paid back through taxes when they get a job or through their job they have, so that's why I wondered.
No, because usually they take out wayy more in welfare than they pay in taxes.. in most cases it never gets paid back, and that is the reason welfare is such a financial burden on this country.
LOL do you sit around thinking up hypothetical scenarios all day?
I got one for you:
1. A bunch of drugged out junkies were refused by welfare and they start rioting in a neighborhood.
2. a bunch of pissed of neighbors come out and shoot them all and claim self defense, and they are all witnesses for each other.
3. the end.
4. The bodies of the junkies rise up as zombies because of an unfortunate reaction of the drugs.
5. They infect more people and eat the neighbors.
6. US is being overrun by zombies.
7. Evil Ernie finally commences megadeath.
8. The end?
Now that's a worthwhile scenario:D
Yay! no helicopters in that one ... you like helicopters don;t you?
I like the idea of multiple uses for hypodermic syringes... you know you can put ANYthing in those things ... and the mere presence of them can invoke terror lol
Zombie doctors with a hypodermic syringe:P Now that's an image that would strike terror XD
In helicopters!