It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guess how many welfare recipients tested positive in Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s drug test?

page: 16
59
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

And you never answered how environmental and work place safety add to productivity and profit.




posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32
Because people are still victims of Nixon's war on drugs. Where white middle America was taught that poor minorities are evil drug consumers going after everyone's' daughters.


So they actually aren't? I heard that before too, but glad to hear it isn't true.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I never answered that because it's irrelevant and off topic.

I have a way to stop domestic violence. We put cameras in every room of your house.

Your against it? You must be for child and spousal abuse.
edit on 26-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

It's very relevant. Environmental laws are oversight that's cuts into production and profits. Bet you are glad they are there. Oversight and management costs resources.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Drug testing for burger flippers and papper pushers prob not cost effective. Jobs like security, chemical, power production, transportation that put people and environments at risk, it's not about costs. When state secrets are at risk, billion dollar facilities, billion dollar jets, public safety, environmental impact, fines for chemical / gas/ nuclear release, cost of human life, drug test are a fraction of cost. But it's about preventing operator error that can harm whole communities and not cause loss of life. Just don't get the stakes do you?
edit on 26-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Do those things cross into personally liberty?

How about we start testing new drugs on people right away so we can find a cure faster?

Why don't we put cameras up in your home to stop domestic violence?

How about your employer decides what car you can drive since sports cars result in more fatalities?

Employers are moving towards treatment because when the metrics are studied it makes a larger impact on all the those things that keep you up at night.

Same should be with the poor. If your drug testing it should be so they see a dr or Dr's who examines if your an addict and then recommend treatment and it's provided. With the possibility of child care and therapy in the same place. Even that needs oversight for corruption.

You seem to forget the poor are not the only cheaters here.

I am not against the cost I am against the waste.

Which is why your arguement keeps falling down.

Of the drug testing showed results that equate with the cost then I would be stuck with a debate about personal liberty. Since that isn't the case I have a pretty encompassing arguement.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: luthier

Drug testing for burger flippers and papper pushers prob not cost effective. Jobs like security, chemical, power production, transportation that put people and environments at risk, it's not about costs. When state secrets are at risk, billion dollar facilities, billion dollar jets, public safety, environmental impact, fines for chemical / gas/ nuclear release, cost of human life, drug test are a fraction of cost. But it's about preventing operator error that can harm whole communities and not cause loss of life. Just don't get the stakes do you?


Good we are finally having some common ground.

America tests something like 57 percent of workers and was about 8percent higher earlierwhen reagan was beating the war on drugs song he learned from nixon.

That means your taking away a significant choice for the public who value privacy. You may find this hard to believe but there are people who use drugs who don't like the invasion of privacy. There are also people who may use say marijuana (also a pretty large population) that don't do so at work. Just like most people don't drink at work. Though if I am an alcoholic I can stop long enough to lower my bac to the acceptable level and then carry on. Which is actually what happens. Or people bring fake piss. The swab arguement does make that better and also more fair to marijuana smokers (again large part of the population).


I think making more than half the jobs available an invasion of privacy is an issue. To think it doesn't become about revanue at some point is rediculous.

Then there is the long term which thank goodness seems to be the trend. Getting people help who are addicts instead of passing the buck all the way to the gutter.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

What do I got to hide? I understand what you are saying, but I choose to be in power production / chemical industries that involve oversight that's about environmental / worker / publicly safety. Not if testing is economical. If I wanted to engage in criminal activity, I wouldn't be here. Drug testing is only part of a background check, testing knowledge, and the physical. Again, it's about prevention and minimizing operator error and danger to the public. I want to work for a company that mitigates risk by getting the best people that are more likely to adhere to plant and government safety regulations and laws. Why is that hard to understand? Bottom line, oversight is not always about costs. It's about minimizing corruption, ethical allocation of resources, or mitigation risk to public and environment. If its about you, probably flipping houses is what's best for you.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I have nothing to hide. I just believe in what the country was founded on.

Why not have cameras in your house? What are you hiding.

Like I said if it wasn't 57 percent of the job market you would have a stronger point.

You start taking away a lot of choices when that is the case. Decide whether to give up your liberty or not becomes the majority of choices.

Just guessing I would say only 15 percent of the job markets require drug testing.

Again these tests don't prove your high at work. Even if they had breathalyzers for the drugs (marijuana is coming) that would make more sense.

I fully support a breathalyzer for pot once they find the level of impairment through research even for DUI tests.

What you are not understanding are the facts.

This is the same thing which creates unforseen consequences in politics

If 90 percent of drug users are faking tests and 70 percent of addicts are working in jobs with testing does it still makes sense? How invasive are you willing to get for accuracy?

Your not really thinking this through with American values.

edit on 26-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
It's against the law to bribe politicians? It happens? We shouldn't have the FBI spend resources investigating and then punish criminal activity? In fact, bribes often make persons rich and create work by obtaining contracts. So bribes create wealth and oversight cost money. Just get rid of the oversight. A win win by your logic.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Thats a terrible arguement.

How does an investigation with probable cause and due process equate to the invasion of personal Liberty? Again you are not thinking out your arguement

Is everybody guilty to the FBI?

They investigate people without probable cause? Or warrants? Nope.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Bribes happen and you cannot stop them. Going to monitor evey financial transaction. Who profits from stopping bribes. it's been shown cost effective to stop bribes? It's your logic? Doing illegal drugs doesn't warrant investigation. What kind of investigation?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Bottom line. Arguments in my industry about cost moot, cause it's not about costs. Privacy. Moot also. It's about public safety and impact to the environment. Again. Live in your little bubble.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Thats kind of an ad hominem no?

You haven't presented any information claiming we need drug testing for almost 60 percent of jobs and that it is working to catch the addicts.

In fact most of the data is conflict of interest done by the drug labs themselves.

I know it's silly to ask that the rule of law is protected but hey that's just me.

Strange though that the rest of the world doesn't drug test kike the US. I wonder why?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Privacy and probably cause? I put by butt down in a commercial jet, I don't have the expectation and right to know if the pilots don't have a criminal history, history of abusing drug / alcohol, are crean for the flight, and mentally and physically competent to operate that jet?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Maybe economies with less manufacturing, chemical, and power production jobs. I still bet their industries drug test more than its let on for anything impacting public safety and environment. You didn't even know what process safety management is..



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

What conflict of interest. Guy passed drug test due to lab error, next day causes the next fukushima melt down while high. Who is getting sued?
edit on 26-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I didn't know what process safety management was?

No your making n arguement that almost 60 percent of America needs drug testing. You know the bagger at your local store. And that that isn't making companies rich.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Well in science you usually dont let the company selling the product to determine if it works.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Usually lab procedures are developed through independent research then is applied to real world situations. A lab learns the method then it's applied. Then the lab is certified through government and professional organizations by showing applied competency and adhering to that industries testing standards and methods. Clinical test labs don't just wing it and have many layers of oversight. What conflict of interest?
edit on 26-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
59
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join