PDA

View Full Version : 53% Support Automatic Drug Testing For Welfare Applicants




RonPaulFanInGA
07-20-2011, 03:42 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/53_support_automatic_drug_testing_for_welfare_appl icants

AlexAmore
07-20-2011, 03:58 PM
I support it given that welfare exists at all. I say regular drug testing, regular inspections, heck just get a freaking parole officer on their ass. The whole 9 yards baby. Don't like it? Stop stealing from me, and you'll stop being treated like a criminal.

muzzled dogg
07-20-2011, 04:01 PM
makes welfare programs much more palatable for the knuckleheads

dannno
07-20-2011, 04:04 PM
I think the government should seize a bunch of drug shipments that the CIA is protecting and just give them out to people on welfare.

Or they just should legalize drugs. I'm pretty sure you could fund a pretty bad coke habit on $1 or $2 a day if it were legal.

The fastest and easiest way to get someone over their addition is to give them essentially unlimited access to it and eventually they will get bored and realize all the drugs in the world won't solve their problems and will likely reduce their intake or quit.

speciallyblend
07-20-2011, 04:06 PM
if people want a free hand out. then they shouldn't be buying bags of marijuana or any drug. If they really want freedom stop sucking the state and federal titties!!

Liberty_Mike
07-20-2011, 04:07 PM
if people want a free hand out. then they shouldn't be buying bags of marijuana or any drug. If they really want freedom stop sucking the state and federal titties!!

Well said. You can't beg for freedom if you are begging from others who are having their freedoms denied by being forced to subsidize you!

dannno
07-20-2011, 04:08 PM
if people want a free hand out. then they shouldn't be buying bags of marijuana

But they should be able to grow it for free, or buy some shwagg for about the same price as tobacco.

dannno
07-20-2011, 04:12 PM
Poor people and those on welfare are hurt by the Federal Reserve created inflation tax the most. I don't blame all poor people for their condition, I blame that on government.

These people should be able to buy these substances for almost nothing, but because of govt. the prices are jacked up. For many poor people, because government has screwed them over and made them dependent, the only joy in life they have is from doing drugs.. but government has screwed them over on both ends. I don't demonize them for that, I demonize the bankers who profit off of the drug war and the inflation tax.

jm1776
07-20-2011, 04:39 PM
53% Support Automatic Drug Testing For Welfare Applicants

The other 47% were either on welfare or expected to be on welfare soon.

dannno
07-20-2011, 04:42 PM
The other 47% were either on welfare or expected to be on welfare soon.

I would say the drug testing companies are really the only ones who are going to benefit from this.

Should people on welfare be prevented from going to Disneyland? Do you want to pay to have that enforced on top of paying for their welfare?

Agorism
07-20-2011, 05:03 PM
Yawn

Anti Federalist
07-20-2011, 05:04 PM
First it was drug testing to get certain safety related jobs.

Then it was drug testing for parolees and convicts.

Then it was drug testing for kids to play high school sports.

Then it was drug testing to hold a multitude of jobs, when it was not even required by law.

Now it's drug testing for state benefits.

And what will be next, eh?

Sorry, the excuse that "well, just don't take welfare benefits" is as lame an excuse for violating people's rights as saying "well, just don't fly" when talking of TSA abuse.

Sometimes you have very little choice in the matter.

AlexAmore
07-20-2011, 05:08 PM
I would say the drug testing companies are really the only ones who are going to benefit from this.

Should people on welfare be prevented from going to Disneyland? Do you want to pay to have that enforced on top of paying for their welfare?

Whenever I'm really broke, that's when I start getting proactive and busting my balls to make money and work on my long term business plan. When I'm comfortably broke I just get passive and linger there and focus on bullshit stuff.

Growth stems from being uncomfortable. Let's not take the one thing that will truly help them away.

jm1776
07-20-2011, 05:08 PM
I would say the drug testing companies are really the only ones who are going to benefit from this.

Should people on welfare be prevented from going to Disneyland? Do you want to pay to have that enforced on top of paying for their welfare?

I am philosophically opposed to both drug probation and tax funded welfare so the best I could do was make a joke about the number of people currently on welfare.

The drug testing companies and of course yet even more authoritarian control by the state.

Next will be testing for unhealthy foods, smoking, etc... Why should tax payers pay for bad health choices that will lead to more tax payer funded health care costs? It just never ends.

aGameOfThrones
07-20-2011, 05:08 PM
Do nations who receive U.S welfare aid count?

NewRightLibertarian
07-20-2011, 05:10 PM
The anti-freedom drug testing industry supports them too.

Anti Federalist
07-20-2011, 05:17 PM
Do nations corporations who receive U.S welfare aid bailouts count?

Updated

LibForestPaul
07-20-2011, 05:20 PM
I support it given that welfare exists at all. I say regular drug testing, regular inspections, heck just get a freaking parole officer on their ass. The whole 9 yards baby. Don't like it? Stop stealing from me, and you'll stop being treated like a criminal.

I second this. Include medicare/medicaid recipients as well.

newbitech
07-20-2011, 05:21 PM
I agree, lets make sure they aren't doing anything illegal. Let's also go ahead and install alcohol switches in their car ignitions to make sure they don't drink and drive. While we are at it, may as well get their finger prints and DNA. Oh and let go ahead and collect all of their medical records, and do a complete private sector background screen as well.

Anti Federalist
07-20-2011, 05:24 PM
I agree, lets make sure they aren't doing anything illegal. Let's also go ahead and install alcohol switches in their car ignitions to make sure they don't drink and drive. While we are at it, may as well get their finger prints and DNA. Oh and let go ahead and collect all of their medical records, and do a complete private sector background screen as well.

You forgot installing surveillance cameras in every room of their home, and implanting RFID tracking chips in them.

Threads like this always make me glum, it's sad to see how easily government initiated theft can cause even people here, who should damn well know better, to turn against their fellow man and not against the thieves who stole from them in the first place.

heavenlyboy34
07-20-2011, 05:25 PM
First it was drug testing to get certain safety related jobs.

Then it was drug testing for parolees and convicts.

Then it was drug testing for kids to play high school sports.

Then it was drug testing to hold a multitude of jobs, when it was not even required by law.

Now it's drug testing for state benefits.

And what will be next, eh?

Sorry, the excuse that "well, just don't take welfare benefits" is as lame an excuse for violating people's rights as saying "well, just don't fly" when talking of TSA abuse.

Sometimes you have very little choice in the matter.
the "privilege" of using government sidewalks and roads. ;) We wouldn't want any possible nefarious types out there, do we?

LibForestPaul
07-20-2011, 05:42 PM
You forgot installing surveillance cameras in every room of their home, and implanting RFID tracking chips in them.

Threads like this always make me glum, it's sad to see how easily government initiated theft can cause even people here, who should damn well know better, to turn against their fellow man and not against the thieves who stole from them in the first place.

If old people want to use medical services on my dime, they should do their utmost to stay healthy. Drug testing should include smoking as well.

Anti Federalist
07-20-2011, 05:54 PM
If old people want to use medical services on my dime, they should do their utmost to stay healthy. Drug testing should include smoking as well.

And what do you do in your spare time, Comrade Citizen, that may prove "doubleplusunbeneficial" to the Glorious State, eh?

I think we had better just take some blood samples to find out, shall we?

Brett85
07-20-2011, 05:55 PM
What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to do any kind of drug testing?

Anti Federalist
07-20-2011, 05:59 PM
What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to do any kind of drug testing?

Damn good question.

Seems to me I recall some quaint notions about...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...that would prohibit such a thing.

aGameOfThrones
07-20-2011, 06:02 PM
Damn good question.

Seems to me I recall some quaint notions about...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...that would prohibit such a thing.


That doesn't apply when you ask for special privileges, unless you're on a special list where it does.

Duckman
07-20-2011, 06:06 PM
I absolutely could not have said it better, Anti-Federalist!

Anti Federalist
07-20-2011, 06:51 PM
That doesn't apply when you ask for special privileges, unless you're on a special list where it does.

Don't hate the playah, hate the game.

AlexAmore
07-20-2011, 07:02 PM
You forgot installing surveillance cameras in every room of their home, and implanting RFID tracking chips in them.

Threads like this always make me glum, it's sad to see how easily government initiated theft can cause even people here, who should damn well know better, to turn against their fellow man and not against the thieves who stole from them in the first place.

It's ok because it's all the same people. Liberals want a big daddy government so they can be taken care of. They elected them. That's why we're in this mess to begin with. Why would they be against supervision by the same people they elected? Liberals don't care about no stinkin Constitution, so they don't get these benefits AND rights. We can't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution applies.

If we just allowed them free reign we'll never get out of this mess. These people need to FEEL big brother or else they won't smarten up.

dannno
07-20-2011, 07:10 PM
That doesn't apply when you ask for special privileges, unless you're on a special list where it does.

So what you're saying is we should drug test the people who own the Federal Reserve, who have the privilege of printing money out of thin air and causing said poverty in the first place?

aGameOfThrones
07-20-2011, 07:22 PM
So what you're saying is we should drug test the people who own the Federal Reserve, who have the privilege of printing money out of thin air and causing said poverty in the first place?


Of course not, silly. They are on a special list where the government protects their Rights from unreasonable blah, blah, blah. Regular People(Mundanes) are afforded no such place on that list.

Rocco
07-20-2011, 07:34 PM
I think it's sickening to support the automatic testing for welfare applicants. They may be doing something that we all detest, but they are still Americans and therefore have their constitutional right to resist unreasonable search and seizure. To automatically drug test a group like this is violating their freedoms in a drastic way and promoting the unconstitutional drug war.

brandon
07-20-2011, 07:41 PM
It's ridiculously easy to beat most drug tests.

brandon
07-20-2011, 07:42 PM
I think it's sickening to support the automatic testing for welfare applicants. They may be doing something that we all detest, but they are still Americans and therefore have their constitutional right to resist unreasonable search and seizure. To automatically drug test a group like this is violating their freedoms in a drastic way and promoting the unconstitutional drug war.

Well to play devil's advocate, they are not being forced to do it. They still do have the right to resist and say no, they just wont continue to get welfare checks.

I don't support any type of government funded drug tests under any circumstance though.

Danke
07-20-2011, 08:29 PM
I'd rather have them smoking the ganja than drinking alcohol.

Danke
07-20-2011, 08:31 PM
First it was drug testing to get certain safety related jobs.

Then it was drug testing for parolees and convicts.

Then it was drug testing for kids to play high school sports.

Then it was drug testing to hold a multitude of jobs, when it was not even required by law.

Now it's drug testing for state benefits.

And what will be next, eh?

Sorry, the excuse that "well, just don't take welfare benefits" is as lame an excuse for violating people's rights as saying "well, just don't fly" when talking of TSA abuse.

Sometimes you have very little choice in the matter.

yep

Thrashertm
07-20-2011, 08:42 PM
Can we drug test Goldman Sachs, Citi, BoA, Boeing, ADM, and the myriad other corporate welfare queens?

QueenB4Liberty
07-20-2011, 08:52 PM
I think we should drug test all government employees. Maybe not.

But the system isn't going to go away. They might as well make it as undesirable as possible.

keh10
07-20-2011, 09:06 PM
I'm not completely opposed to the idea simply because most of the people I know who are recipients of unemployment benefits/food stamps do so exclusively so they can afford more pot. Obviously if drugs were legalized then these people would have less incentive to abuse government subsidies, but in the meantime I think it is ridiculous for someone to steal from us simply because they want to get high. Basically if it will reduce the pool of recipients it is a good thing in my book.

brushfire
07-20-2011, 09:09 PM
Well, this IS government. If you're going to take their money, live under their roof, you gotta play by their rules. This would be a good lesson for many, as its not always spelled out quite so clear.

Brian4Liberty
07-20-2011, 09:21 PM
First it was drug testing to get certain safety related jobs.

Then it was drug testing for parolees and convicts.

Then it was drug testing for kids to play high school sports.

Then it was drug testing to hold a multitude of jobs, when it was not even required by law.

Now it's drug testing for state benefits.

And what will be next, eh?

Let's see...


I second this. Include medicare/medicaid recipients as well.

There we go!


Can we drug test Goldman Sachs, Citi, BoA, Boeing, ADM, and the myriad other corporate welfare queens?

Best idea yet!


I think we should drug test all government employees.

Absolutely, and it must include Congress, the President's Cabinet and the Supremes.

And how can we forget: all recipients of Unemployment Insurance and Social Security!

nicoleeann
07-20-2011, 10:59 PM
We shouldn't have to deal with this nonsense at all. of course i dont want my money going to all the potheads and drug addicts and alcholics out there. typical government "fixing" a problem by more regulation and control. Eliminate public welfare and there would be so many less drug addicts anyways. They couldn't afford it.

Razmear
07-21-2011, 12:53 AM
Wow, how the R3volution has changed since 2008.
I can't believe how fascist some of our members are now, don't turn against your fellow citizens because the government is corrupt.
It's perfectly OK to waste a few trillion blowing up brown folks overseas, but if the family down the street gets food stamps they are the enemy?
WTF?
eb

Razmear
07-21-2011, 12:56 AM
Maybe you want this to be the new status quo?
http://www.wpxi.com/news/28583965/detail.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss
NEW CASTLE, Pa. -- A Lawrence County woman claims local officials improperly seized her newborn son after a positive test for opiates she said was triggered by a poppy seed bagel.

The lawsuit is the second in a year accusing Children and Youth Services of improperly taking a newborn.

Eileen Ann Bower is suing the county agency, a caseworker and Jameson Health System for negligence, invasion of privacy and violation of due process. She says the baby was taken from her three days after birth and returned two months later.

AGRP
07-21-2011, 01:14 AM
They would void welfare all together if they really wanted a solution.

Bman
07-21-2011, 01:52 AM
But they should be able to grow it for free, or buy some shwagg for about the same price as tobacco.

If they can grow it they can sell it and thus not need welfare.

Bman
07-21-2011, 01:55 AM
Let's see...



There we go!



Best idea yet!



Absolutely, and it must include Congress, the President's Cabinet and the Supremes.

And how can we forget: all recipients of Unemployment Insurance and Social Security!

Of course socialism only works with more socialism. Then when you run out of the ability for more socialism your left with a big pile of shit.

DamianTV
07-21-2011, 03:37 AM
This is why Democracy as a System of Government FAILS.

The Majority vote to take away from the Minority until no one is left with anything.

And for those of you that still think that the USA is a Democracy, and in Direct Contradiction to what any Politician will tell you, I will tell you that it is not. But since you may not believe me, you might want to ask one of the Founding Fathers.

When Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, he was asked by a woman "Sir, what have you given us?" to which he replied "A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it."

Now, on the notion that the USA is a Republic and Not A Democracy, when the majority of the people vote to deprive the minority of the fruits of their labors, and insitute a Welfare System, then turn right back around and say that anyone who receives benefits from the Welfare System should be drug tested, not only do we create ourselves a lower class of citizen, and the equivilant of a Slave System, we make everyone that is a part of that system Less and Less Free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXBZd3jmbWg

oyarde
07-21-2011, 10:46 AM
I do not support drug testing or welfare .

Anti Federalist
07-21-2011, 11:52 AM
I do not support drug testing or welfare .

That ^^^

Short, simple and to the point.

brushfire
07-21-2011, 11:55 AM
I do not support drug testing or welfare .



That ^^^

Short, simple and to the point.

Cant argue there...

matt0611
07-21-2011, 11:56 AM
I want being on welfare to be as unpleasant as possible. The less people stealing my money the better.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2011, 12:00 PM
I want being on welfare to be as unpleasant as possible. The less people stealing my money the better.

Unpleasant is one thing.

Wholesale violation of fundamental rights is another thing.

All that does is set yet another precedent, kicking the can of tyranny another few feet down the road.

Krugerrand
07-21-2011, 12:10 PM
This topic almost got me to give out some -rep the last time it came up. I can't believe how quick some of us can be to let the totalitarian camel nose under the tent. What's up with this "well don't accept the government money" line? Does your state accept federal highway funds? Sorry ... but accepting federal funds should not forfeit your inalienable rights. You do not get to control the actions of others.

Too bad if you don't like the chemicals they ingest or leaves they smoke. If you have a problem with that they are getting government funds and doing something in violation of the FDA ... then stop the government from redistributing funds and work towards abolishing the FDA. Those are your constitutional options.

Anti Federalist
07-21-2011, 12:14 PM
And that's worth a +rep.


This topic almost got me to give out some -rep the last time it came up. I can't believe how quick some of us can be to let the totalitarian camel nose under the tent. What's up with this "well don't accept the government money" line? Does your state accept federal highway funds? Sorry ... but accepting federal funds should not forfeit your inalienable rights. You do not get to control the actions of others.

Too bad if you don't like the chemicals they ingest or leaves they smoke. If you have a problem with that they are getting government funds and doing something in violation of the FDA ... then stop the government from redistributing funds and work towards abolishing the FDA. Those are your constitutional options.

Brian4Liberty
07-21-2011, 12:41 PM
I do not support drug testing or welfare .

I'll forth that position. ;)

Johncjackson
07-21-2011, 01:16 PM
if people want a free hand out. then they shouldn't be buying bags of marijuana or any drug. If they really want freedom stop sucking the state and federal titties!!

What if they are buying shoes or potato chips or duct tape or vegetable plants or bubble gum or condoms or toenail clippers or cheetos or postage stamps or gas or furnace filters or paper plates or pens or bandaids or any other random thing that shouldn't be illegal but reasonable people will disagree on whether they personally find it a good purchase based on individual needs/wants/prioirties?

Johncjackson
07-21-2011, 01:18 PM
What about corporate welfare? How about drug testing of every executive, board member, and shareholder of every corporation or business that receives welfare? I guess that's not as easy/cowardly as beating up people on food stamps.

Krugerrand
07-21-2011, 01:27 PM
What about corporate welfare? How about drug testing of every executive, board member, and shareholder of every corporation or business that receives welfare? I guess that's not as easy/cowardly as beating up people on food stamps.

Let's at least start with elected officials!

mczerone
07-21-2011, 01:56 PM
No TV, movies, visits to the water park, video games, alcohol, tobacco, fast food, boxed food, couches, baths (only showers), growing a beard, having friends visit, going to a sporting event, reading fiction, or wasting time in church either.

These damn parasites need to work, damn it, and the State gets to decide how they live if they want a handout.

:rolleyes:

Working Poor
07-21-2011, 02:02 PM
I am against it. The only ones who will really suffer from it will be children.

Drug testing sucks. I wish I could pee enough to give my clean urine to anyone who needs it.

PastaRocket848
07-21-2011, 02:13 PM
If i have to pass a drug test to get a job, you should certainly have to to *avoid* getting a job.

In reality though a much better solution would be to simply not issue checks. if the system has to exist, why not give them prepaid debit cards (EBT style) that can only be used to purchase certain necessary goods? they do that for food stamp recipients, and it works pretty damn well.

i hate the idea that im sitting here broke and dry while some P.O.S. with 15 kids and no job is using a chunk of my paycheck to catch a buzz.

flightlesskiwi
07-21-2011, 03:00 PM
if sh*t like this keeps gaining popularity in the minds of americans, how long will it be until 53% of people feel that in order to claim any deductions on your federal income tax, you have to pass a friggin' drug test??

because, you know, lessening one's income tax burden is a benevolence and a privilege afforded us by the .gov. /s

why do i say this?
Is "subsidy" the right word? Yes. When a taxpayer claims a deduction, exclusion or tax credit that is a special provision - that is, something not key to defining the tax base, it is a subsidy. Instead of having his federal tax bill reduced for a home mortgage interest deduction, the taxpayer could instead be getting a check from the federal government for the savings. http://21stcenturytaxation.blogspot.com/2011/07/mortgage-interest-deduction-is-subsidy.html

Echoes
07-21-2011, 03:09 PM
Horrible idea. Drug testing is just statism on top of statism.

I'd much prefer to see voting rights stripped if you go on welfare. Not that we'd ever see that cuz Democrats want more and more enslaved folks, they love the skyrocketing welfare numbers.

AlexAmore
07-21-2011, 03:29 PM
Obviously there are no perfect solutions when you MUST have welfare added into the mix. This is the discussion we are having though.

Here's why welfare recipients don't deserve complete privacy to do what they want with stolen money. They will know what they are getting themselves into when applying for welfare and if it's still worth it then that's their choice. For the people who are on welfare already then they can always opt out of it and get their privacy back if it's worth it for them to do so.

Nobody is sticking a gun to anybody's head here forcing them into welfare. However the same can't be said for the taxpayer.

osan
07-21-2011, 03:47 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/53_support_automatic_drug_testing_for_welfare_appl icants

First: eliminate welfare in-toto and these issues dissipate into the void. Not very likely to happen soon, so in the meanwhile...

...if we are going to have this drain on our wallets, then I must say that such restrictions are valid and perhaps even necessary. My reasoning runs approximate as follows: if we assume that welfare is in fact morally legitimate (which it is not, but let us suspend disbelief for now), we must also have in hand a precise definition of what the term describes. From where I stand, welfare means help with the basics of living - food, clothing, and shelter. Nothing more. Were I to "reform" welfare, assuming no choice to eliminate it, I would eliminate the issuance of checks and replace them with a welfare card. This card would be valid for purchasing only approved merchandise. No fast foods, no drugs or alcohol, no entertainment, no designer clothing, no $300 shoes, and so forth.

Many will decry this as government interference. I agree. I also assert that in such cases the interference is well warranted. If "government" is going to forcibly expropriate the fruits of my labor by threat of force and violence, then they should at least administer those resources smartly. That means, in part, not adding insult to injury in allowing recipients to use those resources in ways that would indeed offend anyone gifted with even the most meager sense. I am in no humor to be robbed. I am in even less humor for my monies used for drugs, booze, hookers, designer clothing, and so forth. In this age of computer technology, there is no reason for welfare recipients to be given cash. Ever. A card would be the best way to maximally corral the ways in which taxpayer funds are used. Reeks of Big Brother? Sure does, but what could be more BigBro than a welfare state?

Another reason I find such restrictions to be well withing the bounds of propriety is that of motivation. If the welfare lifestyle is received as cushy, what motivation is there to alter that status quo? But if a survival lifestyle, while meeting all the basic needs of day to day living, is deemed to suck by those living it, perhaps there will be some motivation to make some change for their own betterment and to stop picking my pocket.

The opposition I have noted here is misplaced, IMO. Welfare programs as they exist are immoral in their very fabric, but they are a fact nevertheless. I fully support all efforts to eliminate these parasitic drains on freedom and the national economy, but until that day arrives I believe it is morally imperative to administer those resources in ways that are most consistent with a proper notion of "welfare" and the least offensive to those whose assets have been forcibly taken from them to be disbursed to those who have not earned them.

I refuse to accept the tyranny of the poor.

I refuse to accept the tyranny of the do-gooder.

I refuse to accept tyranny regardless of source.

flightlesskiwi
07-21-2011, 03:55 PM
i guess my dilemma here is... since when has government stayed within the strict confines of any "law" it has ever set into motion? especially when government has the "support" of the "majority"??

osan
07-21-2011, 04:21 PM
Horrible idea. Drug testing is just statism on top of statism.

I'd much prefer to see voting rights stripped if you go on welfare. Not that we'd ever see that cuz Democrats want more and more enslaved folks, they love the skyrocketing welfare numbers.

And how is stripping of voting rights less "statist" than drug testing?

mczerone
07-21-2011, 04:42 PM
And how is stripping of voting rights less "statist" than drug testing?

One is a infinitesimally significant privilege granted by the govt and the other is a fundamental right to privacy, religion, medical choice, and recreation.

We both agree that govt welfare shouldn't exist. But if the govt extends a program that benefits some people, it should not discriminate at all with who gets the benefits. Some people might be more productive at their day job if they can smoke some cannabis at night. Some people might need to keep up with TV and Movies because they can make their best living as an actor. Some people might need to spend 6 hours on Sunday and 4 hours on Wednesday at their church to feel comfortable enough with themselves to continue working a repetitive assembly line job.

Which of those diversions from "productivity" is allowed, and which are not, if one needs economic help (as per the intention of the state)?

LibForestPaul
07-21-2011, 05:21 PM
That doesn't apply when you ask for special privileges, unless you're on a special list where it does.

How is it a privilege when it is a forced service funded through mandatory violent theft?

DamianTV
07-21-2011, 06:24 PM
How is it a privilege when it is a forced service funded through mandatory violent theft?

Good Point.

It would be like a Parent saying to their Kid: "Ok Kid, time for YOU to PAY ME your Weekly Allowance" when everyone knows damn well that the only place that these kids can get their allowance or any form of money is either from their Parents, or to STEAL it. After a while, if you were the kid, what would you end up doing?

Feeding the Abscess
07-21-2011, 08:03 PM
Good to see some komrades here supporting jackbooted thugs in expanding the almighty State.

Praise be!

osan
07-21-2011, 08:14 PM
One is a infinitesimally significant privilege granted by the govt and the other is a fundamental right to privacy, religion, medical choice, and recreation.

Voting is essentially a CONTRACTUAL right GRANTED BY THE STATE. How much more "statist" can it get?


We both agree that govt welfare shouldn't exist.

Yes, thankfully.


But if the govt extends a program that benefits some people, it should not discriminate at all with who gets the benefits.

Nonsense. Government MUST discriminate. If they didn't, then by your reasoning Donal Trump should be able to collect a check, too. Discrimination has become a four letter word in politics. If government is going to indulge in such nonsense then I assert unequivocally that they need to discriminate MORE and not less. A LOT more, in fact.



Some people might be more productive at their day job if they can smoke some cannabis at night. Some people might need to keep up with TV and Movies because they can make their best living as an actor.

Weeping Jesus... you cannot be serious. OK, then by that reasoning Joe Ghetto who has aspirations of being a charter airline mogul should be provided with a fleet of Citation X, Gulfstream, and Falcon aircraft. After all, he NEEDS them. If we cannot deny him his ganja, then why can we deny him a fleet of $40MM aircraft? There is nothing in principle to justify denial of one and not the other.


Some people might need to spend 6 hours on Sunday and 4 hours on Wednesday at their church to feel comfortable enough with themselves to continue working a repetitive assembly line job.

You cannot be serious. To hell with their comfort. They should be on-their-knees grateful that they are not freezing and starving to death in a dark alley. But no... the gift of another day of life is not enough. No sir. They have to have cable and drugs and all manner of extraneous diversions and luxuries on someone else's nickel. What a load. If such people do not like being provided with the means of not dying, then let them fend for themselves. The money is OURS not theirs. They have NO right to it whatsoever, so they need to STFU, get over their self-absorbed entitlement-mentality selves, and be grateful they are getting this much help. Jesus...


Which of those diversions from "productivity" is allowed, and which are not, if one needs economic help (as per the intention of the state)?

None are allowed. When you are struggling to survive physically, you don't have any interest in entertainment. If you are worried about boredom, then your straits are not so very dire and it becomes clear that you do not need to be provided with other peoples' monies.

Feeding the Abscess
07-21-2011, 08:16 PM
Voting is essentially a CONTRACTUAL right GRANTED BY THE STATE. How much more "statist" can it get?



Yes, thankfully.



Nonsense. Government MUST discriminate. If they didn't, then by your reasoning Donal Trump should be able to collect a check, too. Discrimination has become a four letter word in politics. If government is going to indulge in such nonsense then I assert unequivocally that they need to discriminate MORE and not less. A LOT more, in fact.




Weeping Jesus... you cannot be serious. OK, then by that reasoning Joe Ghetto who has aspirations of being a charter airline mogul should be provided with a fleet of Citation X, Gulfstream, and Falcon aircraft. After all, he NEEDS them. If we cannot deny him his ganja, then why can we deny him a fleet of $40MM aircraft? There is nothing in principle to justify denial of one and not the other.



You cannot be serious. To hell with their comfort. They should be on-their-knees grateful that they are not freezing and starving to death in a dark alley. But no... the gift of another day of life is not enough. No sir. They have to have cable and drugs and all manner of extraneous diversions and luxuries on someone else's nickel. What a load. If such people do not like being provided with the means of not dying, then let them fend for themselves. The money is OURS not theirs. They have NO right to it whatsoever, so they need to STFU, get over their self-absorbed entitlement-mentality selves, and be grateful they are getting this much help. Jesus...



None are allowed. When you are struggling to survive physically, you don't have any interest in entertainment. If you are worried about boredom, then your straits are not so very dire and it becomes clear that you do not need to be provided with other peoples' monies.

Amen, komrade!

cindy25
07-21-2011, 08:19 PM
the public supports all sorts of mandatory things (national ID, drug tests for students, school uniforms); doesn't make it right. In the end this will only increase costs as the drug tests are another expense, and any welfare saved would be spent on court/prison costs.

qh4dotcom
07-21-2011, 08:43 PM
Threads like this always make me glum, it's sad to see how easily government initiated theft can cause even people here, who should damn well know better, to turn against their fellow man and not against the thieves who stole from them in the first place.
You forgot than most of your "fellow men" are supporting the thieves and helping them get elected

Anti Federalist
07-21-2011, 09:13 PM
You forgot than most of your "fellow men" are supporting the thieves and helping them get elected

I expect that.

Distinguished Gentleman
07-21-2011, 09:33 PM
Quitting chemically addictive drugs can be incredibly difficult and they stay in people's systems a while after they've quit. I could see a kid whose father is in prison and mother struggling to quit, spending half her income to get childcare while she worked fast food. Without food stamps, that child might become malnourished.

I'm not saying it's fair or that much of this isn't brought on by the mother in the example. I just suspect that in practice the law would be disastrous.

Fredom101
07-21-2011, 09:42 PM
This is philosophizing in mid stream. Let's start with first principles. The money should never be stolen to begin with. It's like if someone robs a bank and then we're deciding who should get the money he stole, and what they should do to get it!

Revolution9
07-21-2011, 11:02 PM
the public supports all sorts of mandatory things (national ID, drug tests for students, school uniforms); doesn't make it right. In the end this will only increase costs as the drug tests are another expense, and any welfare saved would be spent on court/prison costs.

The costs will be more than offset in drug testing by those booted from the rolls for getting caught. I would like to see coke, amphetamines and heroin only tests. These lead to crime, destruction of personality and death. As I would not want to fund abortion, I don't want to fund someone trashing themselves. I will buy someone food but will not give them a dime to get buzzed. Let them piss in a cup to remind them they are paupers and have lost their sovereignty by taking handouts from the government. This makes them irresponsible and incompetent legally and a guardian of the state.

Regards
Rev9

Revolution9
07-21-2011, 11:03 PM
Quitting chemically addictive drugs can be incredibly difficult and they stay in people's systems a while after they've quit. I could see a kid whose father is in prison and mother struggling to quit, spending half her income to get childcare while she worked fast food. Without food stamps, that child might become malnourished.

I'm not saying it's fair or that much of this isn't brought on by the mother in the example. I just suspect that in practice the law would be disastrous.

Foodstamps buy food. Welfare buys what you can get traffic in.

Rev9

libertybrewcity
07-21-2011, 11:16 PM
It's a little extreme and those tests aren't cheap. If it was cost effective I would probably support it.

Razmear
07-21-2011, 11:32 PM
Let them piss in a cup to remind them they are paupers and have lost their sovereignty by taking handouts from the government. This makes them irresponsible and incompetent legally and a guardian of the state.

Regards
Rev9

What about those who are disabled by no fault of their own? Do they deserve to be treated like 'paupers' or should we just dump them all in a pit, or maybe 'cleanse' the genepool like Paul Pot did?
The arguments here are bordering on fascist eugenics, not everyone who gets aid from the government is a thief and they do not have any less rights than any other citizen. I suppose if a war vet who lost his legs wanted to smoke a joint and chill out playing X-Box you would advocate tossing him out on the streets so he doesn't steal his rent money from you anymore.
Try putting some of the 3ovl back in your Revolution and go after the real criminals, not societies weakest members, and easiest targets.

eb

DamianTV
07-22-2011, 12:25 AM
I admit I am totally addicted to chemical drugs, of course, in other places those chemical drugs are labeled as "safe for human consumption", and are also known as FOOD.

The sad thing about this is that it sounds to me like 53% of the people surveyed in this poll actually support Communism and Socialism.

ProIndividual
07-22-2011, 03:05 AM
No one should be drug tested without a warrant, or some contractual aggreement with an employer. Do not increase tyranny, and the drug war; decrease the welfare State, and the drug war.

We should NOT be telling ANY adult what to put in their body.

I'd much rather make food stamp cards NOT be able to buy up all the good steaks at the grocery store every 1st and 15th, force them to buy generic cereals, etc. They do not NEED cell phones via welfare in most cases, and they don't NEED new refrigeators every 2 years. We should make welfare uncomfortable, but not tyrannical.

Are we for ANYONE being drug tested without a warrant, or contractual agreement of the persons free will? Then we should be principled and stay against it here.

Are we for welfare being comfortable? Then we should focus on making it less of a handout, and more of an uncomfortable way to get back on your feet (until we eliminate it).

It's their RIGHT to put whatever they want in their body.

Besides, think practically...

...a coke fiend can quit for 3 days and go in and pass a drug test to get welfare. Meanwhile a pothead will need a month to get it out of his/her system...

....are we really trying to reward hard drug use, and discourage poor people from using less expensive, harmful, and addictive drugs? This will be the result, an unintended consequence. Why should a cokeheads kids get food stamps in 3 days, while a potheads kids starve for 4 weeks?

The whole testing idea is nonsense.

AND ANY TIME the majority is for something, and you agree, reconsider your stance...the majority is almost always wrong. The crowd is fickle and stupid. Look how they handles Casey Anthony, the election of officials for over 100 years, and answering questions on history, geography, etc.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

Hence why the entire idea that voting is a good way to solve disputes is based on a false premise; that collectives are smarter than individuals on how to organize (their own) life. Democracy, FAIL.

ProIndividual
07-22-2011, 03:16 AM
The arguments here are bordering on fascist eugenics,

I know what you said there will offend some, but we must be aware...the original classical liberals had a strain of utilitarianism that advocated starvation, because it helped keep population from growing. Therefore they argued that we should let them starve to stop population bubbles from occuring. They regularly and openly advocated, in it's extreme form, Social Darwinism that preceeded the field of eugenics.

So not only are you correct, but it's a mistake historically libertarians have already made. We should never make arguments from the point of view that they should just die if they can't make it on their own...we should be advocating for mutual aid societies at the local level, to replace State welfare systems that are far too centralized and easy to scam. There is nothing wrong with needing, and asking for, a helping hand; there is something wrong with it being a government function and centralized. There is nothing wrong with supporting free markets in a consistant principled way; there is something wrong with advocating Social Darwinism.

Good point.

osan
07-22-2011, 05:50 AM
I do not support drug testing or welfare .

Fully agreed.

But, if you are going to have the latter, one must either have the former or a way of preventing the use of public monies from funding recreational use.

As I wrote earlier, if you are in such dire straits that you feel entitled to use monies forcibly extracted (i.e. stolen) from your fellows, then entertainment should be the furthest thing from your thoughts. If you are of the mind to seek entertainment much beyond the twiddling of your own thumbs, then your circumstances are not nearly so threatening as to justify such expropriations in even the most remote way and you should be on your own. Period.

mczerone
07-22-2011, 06:44 AM
Fully agreed.

But, if you are going to have the latter, one must either have the former or a way of preventing the use of public monies from funding recreational use.

As I wrote earlier, if you are in such dire straits that you feel entitled to use monies forcibly extracted (i.e. stolen) from your fellows, then entertainment should be the furthest thing from your thoughts. If you are of the mind to seek entertainment much beyond the twiddling of your own thumbs, then your circumstances are not nearly so threatening as to justify such expropriations in even the most remote way and you should be on your own. Period.

So you'd support corralling people into track dormitories, with drill sergeants waking people to go dig ditches at dawn, eating gruel for lunch, going back out to work until dark, when they go into the textile mill for four hours until lights out.

No correspondence with family. No church. No access to books or the internet. No soda, no cigarettes, no traditional foods. No personal culture, no music, no art. No rest, no bonding with kids, no mourning for fallen komrades.

And why just stop with people receiving welfare? You drive on the roads, right? You benefit from national defense, right? You have a govt mailbox? You get protection from the police?

If you get any benefit from these social programs, paid for by the taxes of your fellows, you shouldn't be able to translate those benefits into enjoying your life!

Now get to work, prole!

Working Poor
07-22-2011, 06:46 AM
drug test will make welfare cost even more how stupid.

osan
07-22-2011, 08:20 AM
What about those who are disabled by no fault of their own?

They are still able to abuse the funds to which they are not entitled in the first place, so yes. If you are taking the immorally taken property of your fellows, then you agree to the conditions of receipt. Otherwise you can fend for yourself.


Do they deserve to be treated like 'paupers' or should we just dump them all in a pit, or maybe 'cleanse' the genepool like Paul Pot did?

Strawman. More relevant is the other side of that coin: do the taxpayers deserve to have their hard earned properties seized from them without morally justifiable cause and then be subjected to the further insult of having those resources squandered at the hands of the ultimate thieves?

Oh, and BTW, it is Pol Pot.


The arguments here are bordering on fascist eugenics,

Your histrionic exaggerations are not helping you.


not everyone who gets aid from the government is a thief

You'd better reconsider this opinion. If one of your local junkies scores a fine Krell amplifier and sells it to you for $20, by your reasoning you are not a thief. Good luck using that argument before the jury. According to the law, being in knowing receipt of stolen goods makes you just as much a thief as he who committed the physical act. Therefore, those who receive the ill-gotten gains of government perfidy are in fact accomplices to the acts.


and they do not have any less rights than any other citizen.

True, but they are not entitled to those funds. Receipt of such funds require entry into a contractual agreement. If the agreement demands drug testing to ensure they are not squandering the fruits of presumably honest labor.


I suppose if a war vet who lost his legs wanted to smoke a joint and chill out playing X-Box you would advocate tossing him out on the streets so he doesn't steal his rent money from you anymore.

Cry me a river with hypotheticals. I could go into the wholesale destruction of this strawman nonsense, but it just isn't worth the keystrokes.



Try putting some of the 3ovl back in your Revolution and go after the real criminals, not societies weakest members, and easiest targets.

eb

Spoken like a true socialist-statist drone. WTF?

osan
07-22-2011, 08:23 AM
So you'd support corralling people into track dormitories, with drill sergeants waking people to go dig ditches at dawn, eating gruel for lunch, going back out to work until dark, when they go into the textile mill for four hours until lights out.

No correspondence with family. No church. No access to books or the internet. No soda, no cigarettes, no traditional foods. No personal culture, no music, no art. No rest, no bonding with kids, no mourning for fallen komrades.

And why just stop with people receiving welfare? You drive on the roads, right? You benefit from national defense, right? You have a govt mailbox? You get protection from the police?

If you get any benefit from these social programs, paid for by the taxes of your fellows, you shouldn't be able to translate those benefits into enjoying your life!

Now get to work, prole!

Such fallacy-ridden histrionics do not merit an adult response.

osan
07-22-2011, 08:33 AM
We should never make arguments from the point of view that they should just die if they can't make it on their own...we should be advocating for mutual aid societies at the local level, to replace State welfare systems that are far too centralized and easy to scam.

I don't think anyone is advocating for :eat shit and die". We are advocating the elimination of state-sponsored theft. Of all the nations on earth, none can compare with the generosity of the USA. I am confident that the rise of "mutual aid societies" would be significant in the absence of a formal welfare state. It is one thing to give of one's accord. It is quite another to be forced.

mczerone
07-22-2011, 08:33 AM
Such fallacy-ridden histrionics do not merit an adult response.

Where's the fallacy?

I said earlier that if you met the economic conditions that welfare was supposed to address, the govt shouldn't take anything else into considerations. You histrionically responded that then the govt would have to give Donald Trump welfare checks!

There are private options to welfare (that could discriminate), but they are driven out by the monopoly welfare provider. The same could be said for any other services that you get from the govt, therefore you're benefiting from the social purse, money extorted from everyone else. And if you can restrict people's private behaviors (like GOING TO CHURCH, which you said people shouldn't be doing if they're on welfare, at least not as much as some churchgoers) for using govt charity as opposed to private charity, why can you not restrict people's behavior for any of the other "benefits" they get from the govt?

You're post was semi-correct, as even if you did reply, it would not have been an "adult response".

osan
07-22-2011, 08:38 AM
We should NOT be telling ANY adult what to put in their body.


When they are putting it in via my money, you are damned right we should.

If they want my money, they play by my rules. If they don't like my conditions, don't sign up.

AuH20
07-22-2011, 09:00 AM
When they are putting it in via my money, you are damned right we should.

If they want my money, they play by my rules. If they don't like my conditions, don't sign up.

Very valid point. If you want independence and the freedom of choice, remove the proverbial fish hook from one's own mouth. These days everyone wants the freedom and none of the responsibility which comes with it.

Danke
07-22-2011, 09:11 AM
When they are putting it in via my money, you are damned right we should.

If they want my money, they play by my rules. If they don't like my conditions, don't sign up.

Why do you think it is your money?

AuH20
07-22-2011, 09:17 AM
Why do you think it is your money?

We, as taxpayers, are essentially utilized as collateral for the enormous debt our country runs up. And already the "shared sacrifice" propaganda has started to hit the airwaves. The more inefficient a program is, the greater the stress is placed on the bottom line and the likely debt service.

VoluntaryAmerican
07-22-2011, 09:50 AM
*Puts on conspiracy hat*

This whole issue seems like one big Government PSYOP meant to split Libertarian base.

Melissa
07-22-2011, 10:13 AM
I am against drug testing for welfare people but having said that I agree with the poster who said why pick on just one group if they are going to drug test welfare I think everyone receiving public money should be tested starting with federal, state and Local elected Officials, teachers, police, fireman anyone on the public's dime. Maybe this will help the left see why individual freedom and private charities are the way to go.

mczerone
07-22-2011, 10:16 AM
When they are putting it in via my money, you are damned right we should.

If they want my money, they play by my rules. If they don't like my conditions, don't sign up.

They don't get your money. They get govt money. It's already been stolen from you.

What if the conditions for receiving welfare were that you HAVE to attend a church, HAVE to take anti-depressants, HAVE to vote Democrat, or HAVE to watch every episode of American Idol? I'm sure there are some statistics that "prove" that doing these things make one a better, wealthier, more productive person. So If you want "my" money, I want you doing those things that get you on your feet quicker.

But even then, you or I don't get to decide these things. Usually its some special-interest suit heading a federal or state agency, and occasionally some of these decisions fall to "popular vote". The conditions will be whatever the moochers make them.

Sam I am
07-22-2011, 10:36 AM
I think the government should seize a bunch of drug shipments that the CIA is protecting and just give them out to people on welfare.

Or they just should legalize drugs. I'm pretty sure you could fund a pretty bad coke habit on $1 or $2 a day if it were legal.

The fastest and easiest way to get someone over their addition is to give them essentially unlimited access to it and eventually they will get bored and realize all the drugs in the world won't solve their problems and will likely reduce their intake or quit.

I'm pretty sure that drug addictions don't work that way

ProIndividual
07-23-2011, 12:23 PM
I don't think anyone is advocating for :eat shit and die".

Go back and read what I wrote. I never said any of you were or were not advocating for this...I was pointing out the tendancy some can fall into historically to do it.

I made no accusations...I just pointed out the problems with the position that drug testing without a warrant or contractual consent is unprincipled (as we'd be against it normally), and assuming consent of the recipient when it's a State monopoly, and they have no legitimate alternatives in the welfare services sector, is highly presumptuous. It's more likely there in no consent, and therefore drug testing would be wrong.

And as another pointed out...the State has a mostly monopolized road system, therefore you do not consent to driving on their roads just because you do drive on those roads. Their ownership is coerced from private competition, that isn't your concern...your freedom of movement is. Since you are not consenting to this monopoly by simply using it's services, it follows you are on "road welfare"...but that doesn't mean we should drug test you does it? Of course not.

Any argument for drug testing is based in classism, or some other sadistic feeling of revenge on the "leeches" (in some cases they are leeches, don't get me wrong, but you're generalizing in thought). There is no principaled reason to take away civil or natural rights of human beings because they reciever unconsenting services from a government monopoly.

So I didn't say anyone advocated Social Darwinism. I said there is a natural tendancy to do so in classical liberalism, and therefore libertarianism and conservatism. That tendancy is often accompanied by a symptom...classism. This collective identification leads to in-group/out-group psychology, black and white psychopathic fallacies, and generalization in thought patterns.

There are no collectives, there are only individuals.

If you shouldn't be drug tested for driving on roads, then you shouldn't be drug tested for welfare. If you shouldn't be drug tested for recieving government mail, you shouldn't be drug tested for recieving social security (for more than 2/3 or more of Americans this is welfare; they pay in less than they recieve). If you shouldn't be drug tested for calling the police, then yopu shouldn't be drug tested for recieving a corporate subsidy (welfare, when not apllied to everyone evenly, which they aren't).

It's consistant to be against drug testing without a warrant or consentual contract.

Classism is the symptom, Social Darwinism is the disease.

I think we agree wholly on the below statement though :) :



...we should be advocating for mutual aid societies at the local level, to replace State welfare systems that are far too centralized and easy to scam.


But I do not agree with this classist statement:


When they are putting it in via my money, you are damned right we should.

If they want my money, they play by my rules. If they don't like my conditions, don't sign up.


You are not the State, quit identifying with it...it's a collective, you are an individual with no connection to it. It is stolen money, not your money anymore. It's their monopoly that forces welfare recipients to use that monopolized service, not you who has created a monopoly through coercion, violence, and misuse of law. It's not your fault they outlawed mutual aid societies (they were in many cases race based, but instead of ruling that illegal, they banned them outright. They also banned competition in first class mail because Lysander Spooner was kicking their asses.).

It's okay to let go. You didn't do anything. It's not you who is exploited, it's the State and their stolen money....the money they stole from you! Why do you cheer for the theif, and boo the theif that steals from the original theif?

If we decentralize it, it becomes harder to scam welfare. If we privatize it, then it isn't your money unless you donate. Seems like a better solution than statist idea of drug testing all of the poorest citizens in a blanket way, imho. It's, again, your individual right to put whatever you want in your own body...too bad the State stole your money with threat of impisonment, that theivery and collectivism without consent has no bearing on your natural rights as an individual. Inconvenient those rights things are...but essential to life and liberty nonetheless.

osan
07-23-2011, 02:14 PM
Very valid point. If you want independence and the freedom of choice, remove the proverbial fish hook from one's own mouth. These days everyone wants the freedom and none of the responsibility which comes with it.

That's most of the problem in a nutshell.

osan
07-23-2011, 02:15 PM
Why do you think it is your money?

What might make you think that it is not?

osan
07-23-2011, 02:28 PM
They don't get your money. They get govt money. It's already been stolen from you.

Huh? Your credibility is running very thin at this juncture. My money is stolen from me under the threat of prison and even violent death. It may be in "their" wallets, but it is still my money.


What if the conditions for receiving welfare were that you HAVE to attend a church,

I believe the First Amendment takes care of that.


HAVE to take anti-depressants

These are all POSITIVE requirements, whereas prohibitions are negative ones. These are fundamentally different. Your reasoning is full of very large and gaping holes.


The conditions will be whatever the moochers make them.

This is, in point of fact, exactly so. Doesn't make it right, though.

acptulsa
07-23-2011, 02:41 PM
Ain't drug testing wonderful? Pot keeps showing up for a month while the Big Pharma stuff like Xanax and such crap as coke and meth are gone in hours. What a wonderful way to miss all the real problem people and punish the mellow and munchie-afflicted...

But we have to punish the depressives who dare to turn to nature, rather than Big Pharma, for their meds. Don't we?

Danke
07-23-2011, 03:26 PM
What might make you think that it is not?

You gave up your claim to it.

DamianTV
07-23-2011, 04:44 PM
I have a question. How much will it cost to drug test everyone on Welfare?

osan
07-23-2011, 10:18 PM
Go back and read what I wrote. I never said any of you were or were not advocating for this...I was pointing out the tendancy some can fall into historically to do it.

You wrote:


We should never make arguments from the point of view that they should just die if they can't make it on their own


If I misinterpreted, then I have no idea how to read what you wrote. It seems clear to me that you are admonishing against such a position - and I agree - but I responded by writing that I didn't think anyone here holds such a position.



I just pointed out the problems with the position that drug testing without a warrant or contractual consent is unprincipled

Or mal-principled :) I completely agree. One of my points was to make testing part of the contractual stipulations. If you don't like the tests, don't take the check.


It's more likely there in no consent, and therefore drug testing would be wrong.

Not quite. If the testing is made a requirement and the potential recipient declines consent, they don't agree to the conditions of the contract and are free not to take their checks.


Any argument for drug testing is based in classism,

Maybe, maybe not. In any event, so what? This sounds like some backdoor method of crying "discrimination!", a word that fails to frighten me in the least. On any event, none of this is really pertinent. Someone is taking money from presumably honest taxpayers, ostensibly for the purposes of staying alive because they are in some tough situation. I we assume it is morally acceptable to seize the assets of one for the sake of helping another, it follows that those whose assets have been so seized should have a voice as to how those assets are used by those receiving them.

This whole exchange is pointless in any event as I believe the welfare system should be eliminated completely. If the welfare set can find kind hearted people to foot their bills for hookers and booze, more power to them. I see no reason for such support to be forcibly squeezed from us.


or some other sadistic feeling of revenge on the "leeches" (in some cases they are leeches, don't get me wrong, but you're generalizing in thought). There is no principaled reason to take away civil or natural rights of human beings because they reciever unconsenting services from a government monopoly.

Your error here is in equating the drug requirement with a violation of human rights. It is not because the people receiving welfare aid are free to reject it. It is the same in both public and private employment. By your reasoning, requiring drug testing of employees violates their rights in the same way as for welfare recipients. Do you feel that this is so? If so, why? If not, how are the cases different? We are not entitled to any given job, nor are we entitled to welfare checks, regardless what the law may state to the contrary.


So I didn't say anyone advocated Social Darwinism.

It is not clear that this was your meaning. Just mentioning it FYI.


I said there is a natural tendancy to do so in classical liberalism,and therefore libertarianism and conservatism.

There is? I have yet to experience this attitude in anything more than very remote examples. Can you illustrate?


That tendancy is often accompanied by a symptom...classism. This collective identification leads to in-group/out-group psychology, black and white psychopathic fallacies, and generalization in thought patterns.

This is a natural thing and it is not necessarily wrong. It depends on how the classes are defined and how they are handled. For example, I would partition the world into two kinds of people: those who love liberty and those who do not. This in itself is a harmless distinction, particularly if I am an advocate of the Golden Rule. If, OTOH, I advocate the enslavement or perhaps even the extermination of those who do not cherish liberty, then I would say there was a problem.


There are no collectives, there are only individuals.

Agreed. Do some searching for my posts and you will find example after example where I point this out.


If you shouldn't be drug tested for driving on roads, then you shouldn't be drug tested for welfare.

I see where this comes from, but I believe it is fallacious. I would have to do some analysis to find it. Way too preoccupied with other more pressing issues these days, so I will have to demur.

I
f you shouldn't be drug tested for recieving government mail, you shouldn't be drug tested for recieving social security

Uber fallacy. I am paying for both mail service and SS (though I advocate for elimination of the latter). There is no possible way to legitimately equate these to a welfare program. They are not even remotely the same. In fact, now that I think of it, the same can be said for roads because we all pay for them in taxes and tolls. Nobody is giving roadways to me. I am paying for them and therefore have a right to travel on them.


(for more than 2/3 or more of Americans this is welfare; they pay in less than they recieve).

Valid point, but not the taxpayer's problem. I, for example, have not asked the "government" to subsidize the mail system. In fact, I strongly object to the practice and demand it be stopped immediately. Let us see how it takes to get what I want. <tap> <tap> <tap>...


If you shouldn't be drug tested for calling the police, then yopu shouldn't be drug tested for recieving a corporate subsidy (welfare, when not apllied to everyone evenly, which they aren't).

Fallacious along the same lines. We pay for police, etc., so we have bought rights to their services. Your mention of corporate subsidies is, however, precisely correct. It is precisely the same sort of situation as that of personal welfare, and therefore if we are going to have it, drug test the board members... frequently because if the corporation is in such shape that they need "welfare", I contend those running it merit some scrutiny. :)


It's consistant to be against drug testing without a warrant or consentual contract.

Completely agree. It is also consistent to stipulate drug testing for those seeking to receive monies forcibly extracted from my wallet. This is a simple contractual relationship, exchanging value for value (not really... the taxpayer is getting nothing back, but we can ignore that bit for now).

C
lassism is the symptom, Social Darwinism is the disease.

I don't see this as the case at all. Perhaps you can elaborate more on the chain of reasoning?


I think we agree wholly on the below statement though :) :

...we should be advocating for mutual aid societies at the local level, to replace State welfare systems that are far too centralized and easy to scam.



It is agreeable.



You are not the State, quit identifying with it...it's a collective, you are an individual with no connection to it.

Clearly we are not familiar because if you knew me better you would never accuse me of such a thing. I identify with the assets that have been stolen from me and demand they be at least used in better accord with my sense of propriety. But far more significantly, I strenuously object to being robbed in the first place. In addition, it is nobody's place to dictate to me whom I shall help or how.


It is stolen money, not your money anymore.

Interesting perspective. I cannot agree. It may be stolen, but it is still mine. If someone jacks my car, then I am not entitled to have it returned to me if what you assert it true. By your reasoning, once the vehicle has left my direct control, it is no longer mine. By this reasoning then, all that counts for the thief is that he gets away with the act because title transfers with possession no mater how possession is gained. May I take it you see the problems with this position?


It's their monopoly that forces welfare recipients to use that monopolized service,

It most certainly does not, and I am all too eager to take any opportunity to take a swag at anything government does. I can appeal to various private charities in favor of government welfare. I can also choose to live under a bridge and starve to death. Nobody, to my knowledge, is forcing anyone to accept welfare checks at the point of a gun. Am I mistaken?



It's not your fault they outlawed mutual aid societies (they were in many cases race based, but instead of ruling that illegal, they banned them outright. They also banned competition in first class mail because Lysander Spooner was kicking their asses.).

I was not aware of this. Do you have any links?


It's not you who is exploited,

I'm not? That is news to me.


Why do you cheer for the theif, and boo the theif that steals from the original theif?

I boo each. Go back and read what I have written. My opening volley was that I would see all government entitlements burned to the waterline.



I think we agree on the whole.

Fox McCloud
07-23-2011, 10:57 PM
I'm leery of supporting this, but....at this point, if it reduces the amount of people on welfare, then so be it....we already have drug testing anyway >>

Anti Federalist
07-23-2011, 11:31 PM
I'm leery of supporting this, but....at this point, if it reduces the amount of people on welfare, then so be it....we already have drug testing anyway >>

You're right to be leery...the answer to tyranny is never more tyranny.

ProIndividual
07-24-2011, 01:03 AM
We should never make arguments from the point of view that they should just die if they can't make it on their own


If I misinterpreted, then I have no idea how to read what you wrote. It seems clear to me that you are admonishing against such a position - and I agree - but I responded by writing that I didn't think anyone here holds such a position.


How to interpret it, is how it is written. It doesn't imply I'm making an accusation. It gives an opinion as to how we should view things, and how some others view it. Again, to get the whole context of the sentence, reread the entire statement or post. I accuse no one, I point out how classical liberalism included in it's extreme forms Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is exactly the view that "they should just die if they can't make it on their own"...so that is what I'm describing. I am admonishing this ridiculous inhumane position, I didn't say anyone took that position...the person I originally directed the comment toward did. I never concurred anyone was doing that, I concurred it is a problem in libertarian thought on ocassion...and for that matter conservatism. I've heard conservatives say "no one that doesn't own property should vote". That used to be the case in this country due to attitides I am admonishing...and rightfully so. I was not accusing anyone. And no one here holds that position, YET. Just hang around long enough, someone will cheelead for Social Darwinism, I've seen it on these forums already. I saw one that said "people who can't educate their own kids shouldn't have them"...to which I replied "literacy has little or nothing to do with successful parenting"...to which I was told "education and literacy aren't related"...whichever...maybe that person didn't mean what seems obvious that they meant (and I believe they didn't), but certainly this is a statement rooted in Social Darwinism (although he didn't mean it that way).

We have to be aware of this tendancy to cut it off at the pass. We never need to outlaw welfare, and we never need to drug test recipients...it amounts to classism, which pre-empts Social Darwinism. We need to decentralize and privatize welfare, and then drug testing can be a condition of recieving it, as the contract will be consetual (the donors who fund it will be aware of the rule, as well as the recipients).


Or mal-principled I completely agree. One of my points was to make testing part of the contractual stipulations. If you don't like the tests, don't take the check.


that would require voluntary funding, not just recieving of the funds. I do not consent to my tax dollars paying for drug tests, or preventing people from recieving any govt services simply because of drug use.


Not quite. If the testing is made a requirement and the potential recipient declines consent, they don't agree to the conditions of the contract and are free not to take their checks.


again you skip the fact the funding end of this isn't voluntary, and that the recipient have only one monopoly in which to rely on, not a free market of choices of charities handling it. That means it is not voluntary on either end. That's like saying I have a monopoly on food, but require all women to give me oral sex to eat...if they don't like it starve right? That must be voluntary? No.


Maybe, maybe not. In any event, so what?

I won't even try. If you think classism is anything but leftist nonsense we have a problem.



Your error here is in equating the drug requirement with a violation of human rights.

It is, as you don't have a consetual contract (in funding or otherwise) or a warrant from a judge. It's illegal search and seizure (well search...lol).


It is not clear that this was your meaning. Just mentioning it FYI.


Fair enough. Maybe i wasn't totally clear.


There is? I have yet to experience this attitude in anything more than very remote examples. Can you illustrate?



Look up classical liberalism on Wikipedia...it was apart of it for over a century. This isn't new, listen to Limbaugh rail against welfare, he borders on it all the time. Again, I've heard conservatives say the poor should left to die, and I quote "fuck them".



This is a natural thing and it is not necessarily wrong.

Only if the informal logical fallacy presented is true. In the case of what we are discussing, and the comment you quoted, it is a wrong idea. It sets up a false dichotomy. All classism is BS...people slip in out of classes all the time...they are fluid, not set. There are no classes, or class war (unless you count the political class against us all).


I see where this comes from, but I believe it is fallacious. I would have to do some analysis to find it.

To find what ( I wonder)? Both are funded through force, neither are allowed free competition and have near monopolies. Roads or welfare, they are both funded by threats and distibuted by a near monopoly...in no way is this different. One service is as good as another, one tax as bad as another. You are on 'road welafre', we all are...and like the welfare recipients and funders, we have no choice either.


Uber fallacy. I am paying for both mail service and SS (though I advocate for elimination of the latter).

You're not making any sense. Niether is a choice to fund, nor a choice to partake in, as they are near monopolies. How is this different? For most people it is welfare. The fact you pay in makes no difference, as most welfare recipients have worked (or do work under poverty level) and have paid into the system also. The fact they may or may not have gotten their money back or not is irrelevant. I magine you made 60K a year until the collapse...now you are on wel;fare as your 99 weeks of unemployment has run out, and still no jobs....are you the same as someone who never paid in at all? yes. You aren't morally recieving welfare until you recieve one dollar more than you paid in. It's immoral because it's funded through force, and monopolized as a service.




There is no possible way to legitimately equate these to a welfare program.

I just did, and did in the original post you're quoting...and quite logically I might add. You are on road welfare, face it. There is basically a road monopoly, face it.


I am paying for them and therefore have a right to travel on them.



That sounds great, but it's not the case. Quit your job tomorrow and don't get another one. Are you banned from driving on the road? No. So it's nonsense. You are on road welfare, as you didn't pay for all those roads. The funding was extorted, and the service is socialized. It's like any other socialized monopoly, some pay for it, some do not. If less than 50% of the country pay income taxes net, then over 50% of us pay nothing and use all the same services.



Valid point, but not the taxpayer's problem. I, for example, have not asked the "government" to subsidize the mail system. In fact, I strongly object to the practice and demand it be stopped immediately. Let us see how it takes to get what I want. <tap> <tap> <tap>...



And this does what to change the current circumstance? nothing. What you and I prefer do not change current reality...we have socialized monopolies, all of which are coerced for the funders and recipients. How can this be true, and at the same time it not be relevant? It is of the utmost relevance...you asking for it means nothing. I didn't ask for anything at all, but I still am compelled to pay for tyranny at every turn. I'd prefer that without warrants or consent we don't search persons or properties...pretty cut and dry I think. Pretty much the 4th amendment I believe.


Fallacious along the same lines. We pay for police, etc., so we have bought rights to their services.

Again, FAIL.


You have no right to any service at all, that's what liberals think, that we have rights to these services. Paying or not is irrelevant, it isn't your money...it was extorted and stolen from you...you seem to forget that. This isn't payment for a service...it's theft. You don't get to say "I have a right to protection because I pay the mafia for it"...they are the ones you are paying to NOT be subjected to violence. You pay the tax to not go to jail, the extorted businessman pays the mafia to not be beaten or have his business blown up. You got your service when you didn't go to prison...after that you have NO SAY on what the State chooses to spend their extorted money on, no more than you have the right to expect the mafia to "protect' you. Police are easily able to be privatized, not monopolized like now, solving much of this issue. Solving the rest of it means voluntary funding. Until those things are done, you will continue to be extorted...but will hopefully stop stating the fallacy that it's your money still and you are entitled to some service you are not.

This is why user fees and donations should find all govt, especially police. The idea that if you don't pay for the cops you don't deserve to recieve their services is bunk. The idea that if you pay taxes somehow you are a better citizen is bunk (worse, it's acceptance of serfdom). Tax is theft, you aren't a good citizen for being stolen from above your refund amount, bottom line. It just makes you a submissive serf like the rest of us. You are on police welfare, and if YOU are not, over 2/3 of the country is. It isn't possible to have 100% of the citizenry pay for it's own retirement or police or orads or welfare...it's economically impossible.

Next time you go on vacation out of state to a place you don't pay taxes, do not walk on their sidewalks, drive on their roads, use their fire dept, etc...you didn't pay for them welfare queen...lol.



It is also consistent to stipulate drug testing for those seeking to receive monies forcibly extracted from my wallet.

no it isn't, because I have the same problem and yet have the opposite belief. One of us will not be happy, hence why monopolies like this suck balls. You want to be tyrannical to the poor, I do not. One of us will not be happy...but why? because we are extorted! The crime is theft by the govt, not the welfare itself. The poor aren't taking your money or stealing from you....the govt is!

Also, again, the monopoly on the welfare sector by govt means the poor also have no choice largely in where they recieve welfare...meaning there is no consent. You do not consent to coercive monopolies, logically.


I don't see this as the case at all. Perhaps you can elaborate more on the chain of reasoning?



Look up Social Darwinism...classim is a major factor. How else do you decide who needs to be thinned by "survival of the fittest" according to wealth? Social Darwinism includes thinning the herd (of humans) by who make it financially. It also assumes idiocy like "rich people must be smarter about economics, cause they are rich and you aren't"...we saw that disproved by listening to the protectionist nonsense Donald Trump spewed...we also see it by looking at socialist idiot and billionaire George Soros. Social Darwinism is a classism FAIL.


I identify with the assets that have been stolen from me and demand they be at least used in better accord with my sense of propriety.

You shouldn't. You should demand they are not stolen from you so you can decide for yourself. It's illogical to have a mafia steal your money, and then think you can demand where it is spent as if it is still yours...it isn't. They don't care what you want. End the theft, don't seek to help it be more efficient.



Interesting perspective. I cannot agree. It may be stolen, but it is still mine.

In effect, no it isn't. There is no law that will prosecute the theif, the theif whose identity you KNOW for a fact. We may agree it is your property in a moral way, but when a theif gets away with robbing you, it's his effectively. You need him to be caught in order to get your property back. From experience, I'll tell you that even when they are caught, you rarely get your property back. So, like in real life, chalk it. It isn't yours anymore no matter what delusions of grandeur you or I may operate under.

It ceases to be yours, just like protection money ceases to be yours when you pay the mafia. It's "leave me alone" money...anything else is an illusion.



It most certainly does not, and I am all too eager to take any opportunity to take a swag at anything government does. I can appeal to various private charities in favor of government welfare.

You can also drive on privatized roads...but are there enough to say the govt doesn't have a near monopoly? No, of course not. You fail to recognize they outlawed private welfare like mutual aid societies, and that none of the funding is voluntary. If the funding were voluntary, then you wouldn't pay any taxes, and a lot more resources would be available for a lot mopre people, at more local decentralized levels, therefore creating competition in the welfare sector again.

I suppose the mail isn't monopolized because only first class mail is subject to the rules, not FedEx or UPS? It makes no sense. Of course they have a near mail, welfare, road, police, etc., monopoly. It's not a disqualifier to have very limited competition...in most cases they are "competing" with cronies anyway. This is mercantilism 2.0


Nobody, to my knowledge, is forcing anyone to accept welfare checks at the point of a gun. Am I mistaken?



Sure they are, the same way I'm forced to drive down a socialized road. There is no physical gun in either, but coercion is present. There is no alternative route to my destination that is fully voluntarily funded or privatized out of the govt's clutches. The same is true of welfare, neither funded voluntarily, nor allowed to compete in the free market. Anything less than a free market of choices will be coerced. You seem to look at coercion in a limited scope, and refuse to admit that you are advocating stealing 4th ameendment rights of poor people as a general rule, as oppose to only going after those who agree to it.

Why is it that buying a ticket to a plane is recognized as NOT being a reason to say you gave up your fourth amenedment rights? Is it because you PAID? No. It's because there is no warrant or consent...it's against your right, and the paying is irrelevant. Same for welfare. "Choosing" to receive welfare from the near monopoly does not mean you give up your 4th amendment rights...you need them to consent directly to it...not for receiving the welfare, but for the drug test without a warrant, PERIOD. No agreement ot recieve a service, paid for or not, can overrule your natural, and indeed Constitutional, rights. They aren't subject to vote, let alone regulation of govt assholes.


I was not aware of this. Do you have any links?


Yes. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/friendly-societies-voluntary-social-security-and-more/

http://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com/2011/05/judge-napolitano-sell-post-office.html



I'm not? That is news to me.


Well okay, i may have went too far there....lol...but my greater point stands.


I boo each. Go back and read what I have written. My opening volley was that I would see all government entitlements burned to the waterline.



I think we agree on the whole.

We do agree on the whole....but I think attacking the original theif is the first place to start, not the theif who steals from the theif (not everyone on welfare is a theif either, btw, just the ones who don't deserve it and wouldn't get it in a private version).

I hope you liked the Freedom Watch video that mentions Spooner and his post office dealings. :)

SimpleName
07-24-2011, 05:08 AM
Poor people and those on welfare are hurt by the Federal Reserve created inflation tax the most. I don't blame all poor people for their condition, I blame that on government.

These people should be able to buy these substances for almost nothing, but because of govt. the prices are jacked up. For many poor people, because government has screwed them over and made them dependent, the only joy in life they have is from doing drugs.. but government has screwed them over on both ends. I don't demonize them for that, I demonize the bankers who profit off of the drug war and the inflation tax.

Yes! We should not forget that much of their condition is directly caused by the government who have repeatedly preyed upon the poor, insisting that they "deserve more", which only pushes them into deeper and deeper debt. And they do all this while telling them they are their to help them and keep them safe. These are the least intelligent, most vulnerable people in the country. Demonizing the poor merely for being poor isn't the way to go, especially not on a forum that knows how government massacres the poor.

Despite that, drug testing doesn't sound too bad on paper. I don't want anybody spending money on drugs receiving my money. The problem, like some have already mentioned, is who is going to pay for this? WE ARE! AGAIN! Sure you could say this will weed out the ones using the money on drugs, but will it really? Won't they just cycle off for the test? And if we are going to do random drug tests, that will cost exponentially more. Its all a worthless attempt in the end. This whole damn system is going to collapse anyway if it doesn't drastically change.

osan
07-24-2011, 10:31 AM
I won't even try. If you think classism is anything but leftist nonsense we have a problem.

Classifying is a hardwired feature of human cognition. It cannot be avoided. Doing it poorly, however, can... if awareness and will are present.

I
t is, as you don't have a consetual contract (in funding or otherwise) or a warrant from a judge. It's illegal search and seizure (well search...lol).

Sure you do. I want the money, I sign on the line that I will meet the litany of stipulations in order to receive it. I get my check. Nobody is holding a gun to my head to take the check under conditions X. Were that the case, then I would completely agree that there was no consent and therefore your points would be well taken.



You have no right to any service at all, that's what liberals think,

OK, I think I get the disconnect here. Being robbed, therefore no consent, therefore no rights because there is no contract. Got it. I was coming at it from another direction, basically misconstruing a contract under conditions of coercion, which of course is not possible. My bad.

Given this, government taxation becomes even more egregious. The fallacy here is that one has any true contractual rights in an environment of coercion. This, in turn, invalidates all government as we know it, leaving... what? Anarchy? So it seems. :)

This is why user fees and donations should find all govt, especially police.

I advocate elimination of all police. Sheriffs are all we need, if even those.

I have been mulling over another political paradigm. I call it "Nonarchy". The idea is still half-baked, but one of the elements that is solid in my mind it the idea that every government position is elected. There are to be no appointed positions, ever. In addition, nobody would be able to hold a given governmental position more than once.
The effect here is to prevent career politicians in the way we are accustomed. The problems with this, of course, is the likely formation of "behind the throne" structures that use the office holder as a puppet. This potential hazard would be present, and is present today, so I suppose the idea here is to make corruption as difficult as possible.


We may agree it is your property in a moral way,

That was the point I was trying to make.

mczerone
07-24-2011, 03:23 PM
Huh? Your credibility is running very thin at this juncture. My money is stolen from me under the threat of prison and even violent death. It may be in "their" wallets, but it is still my money.

Personally, I'd agree that you still have legitimate title to the resources stolen from you. But you or I aren't in charge of the dispute agency, are we? No, the govt is, and they very clearly make "legal title" to tax revenue lie with the govt. It's their money for all intents and purposes. You don't like how they spend it? Stop letting them take it.


I believe the First Amendment takes care of that.

There are ways for the govt to get around the 1st Amendment. They just make the law secular on its face, and just because it happens to affect religious choices will not trigger the 1st Amendment. And that's if the govt itself even bothers to follow its own constitution, which it has little incentive to do.


These are all POSITIVE requirements, whereas prohibitions are negative ones. These are fundamentally different. Your reasoning is full of very large and gaping holes.

Yes, and the POSITIVE requirement for taking a drug test doesn't punch a gaping hole into your argument. :rolleyes:


This is, in point of fact, exactly so. Doesn't make it right, though.

Agreed, but the problem isn't solved by treating the symptoms. We must focus first on the disease, and let the symptoms run their course.

Sam I am
07-24-2011, 03:32 PM
I for one am not concerned about additional hoops you have to jump though as a condition to take advantage of welfare. If you're going to benefit of welfare at all, you had better be off the drugs, and anything else that would prevent you from finding a real job so you can get yourself off of welfare.

As Ron Paul himself said, you don't have a right to stuff, so you shouldn't complain about conditions for that stuff.

Krugerrand
07-26-2011, 09:27 AM
Originally Posted by ProIndividual
We should NOT be telling ANY adult what to put in their body.

When they are putting it in via my money, you are damned right we should.

If they want my money, they play by my rules. If they don't like my conditions, don't sign up.



Interesting perspective. I cannot agree. It may be stolen, but it is still mine. If someone jacks my car, then I am not entitled to have it returned to me if what you assert it true. By your reasoning, once the vehicle has left my direct control, it is no longer mine. By this reasoning then, all that counts for the thief is that he gets away with the act because title transfers with possession no mater how possession is gained. May I take it you see the problems with this position?

Osan, pardon me for not following along. It sounds to me like - by continuing your car example - if someone were to steal your car, you get to have claim on MORE than YOUR CAR. It would be as if just your tires were stolen, and now you get to have claim on all the tires on the road.

Your money is stolen from you to pay for welfare. But, my money was also stolen from me to pay for welfare. Why do you get to declare drug tests happen but I do not get to declare drug tests do not happen? I can guarantee that more welfare monies are paid out than just what got stolen from you. Thus ... more than your car is what you are trying to say you get to control.

Or, are you saying that the community gets to vote on it? Are you saying that the money stolen from you becomes the property of the community and therefore the community gets to decide if it has strings attached. I know I don't like the sound of that either.

Also - I don't believe you've addressed the statist/corporatist position you are advocating by endorsing the legitimacy of the FDA. What is an okay drug and what is a not okay drug? Why is morphine and other opiates okay when a doctor prescribes it and you give a cut to the pharmaceutical industry, but try growing poppies and producing your own opium and that is not okay? Why are you insisting that the pharmaceutical industry gets a cut of your money?

The FDA should not exist. There should be no federal control on what plants you grow and consume. Why are you advocating giving this bogus unconstitutional entity more control and influence with MY MONEY?

EDIT: Also, keep in mind the threads about the children who got stolen from their parents by CYS after the mothers ate salad dressings and bagels with poppy seeds.

Anti Federalist
07-26-2011, 01:10 PM
Yet another reason to push this camel's nose back out of the tent.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?305104-Fingerprint-scanner-can-detect-drug-users

dannno
07-26-2011, 08:12 PM
Yet another reason to push this camel's nose back out of the tent.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?305104-Fingerprint-scanner-can-detect-drug-users

Sounds profitable.

osan
07-27-2011, 08:18 AM
Yet another reason to push this camel's nose back out of the tent.

With brick and bat, preferably.