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

a reply to: luthier

Simple question, what grocery store drug tests their baggers?

a reply to: neutronflux

Kroger

a reply to: luthier

Good. I will stat shopping there more.

a reply to: neutronflux

Does it matter you think it's justified.

The vast majority of drug tests fail for weed which stays in your body for up to 45 days. Now saliva would be better. That would be a good compromise. However the breathalyzer would be much better. It would indicate if you were high at work.

Or a dr should interpret if the levels of thc or metabolites show you are high

This is a drug a slim majority of Americans are in favor of legalizing. Half have used at one time and is now legal in several states and DC. On top of that is considered medicine by doctors.

For instance Gary Johnson the former gov of NM got in a hang glider accident became an inch and a half shorter from the spinal injury and used marijuana instead of pain killers during the healing process.
Couldn't do that in SC. He would be fired. Does it make sense legally sure. Does it make sense practically no.

If it were legal in my state I may choose to use it for glaucoma. Many kinds of pot actually don't get you high and were designed that way for medical purposes yet still will fail tests.

There are just too many factors to make it an over arching policy

if you do random tests to pilots thats a lot different than testing a bagger once. Obvious the effectiveness goes up. I don't think you can justify doing that for a secretary if your test can't say she was using pot at work.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: luthier

Good. I will stat shopping there more.

You may enjoy Saudi Arabia.

a reply to: luthier

Why would you do a drug that stays in your system that long? Most cancer is derived from repeated exposure to chemicals that don't belong in your system?

a reply to: neutronflux

Cannabinoids already exist in your body.

The drug does not stay in your body that long genius. The metabolites do.

And pot has been found to slow and stop tumor growth. It's the only smoke known to man to not have a link to cancer which confuses researchers.

The VA is using it for vets for goodness sake.

You really need to read more.

www.ibtimes.com...

a reply to: luthier

Happy with my life, don't need the drug. Sorry.

a reply to: neutronflux

You have never had a beer?

originally posted by: neutronflux
And you never answered my question. If I trust a pilot to fly me across the ocean, I don't have the expectation and right to know they are not on illegal drugs? Not criminals. Are mentally and physically up to the task.

You should be able to trust they're sober while flying the plane. A heroin addiction doesn't mean they're incapable of their job, it just means they make poor life decisions, it's pretty much the same thing as a painkiller addiction and people with those are considered capable of driving/flying others. Additionally, we trust alcoholics to do their jobs all the time, some of those jobs even put several peoples lives on the line.

originally posted by: neutronflux
What grocery chain drug tests by the way?

Krogers does, I failed a drug test with them a couple years ago. Funny thing about that is I've never done drugs of any type in my life. False positives and all.

originally posted by: luthier
You have never had a beer?

I haven't. Never so much as tasted one which is just as well since I don't like the taste of alcohol.

But you don't say how many refused the test! My guess it is the remainder of the 2700.
Back when I was doing such things, my first investigative stop would be the 'welfare fraud' office. Liberals, druggies and other trash, may want to hide, but they told the truth when they want their free money.
If you want to find a crook, look for his mother and welfare address...

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Is there any mention of how they decide who to test? Seems like a small percentage. I'd be curious to see a larger sample set. Nothing wrong with such testing, either. Plenty of employers require one. Heck, the military gets tested regularly.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I wonder how many of them tested positive for lead? Probably a lot more than before Snyder was governor.

By writing simple essays they can grow up to be a very talented and creative writer or speaker, or logical theorist or whatever. Writing developed you in many ways. In student life, research proposals play an important role. Students should be bright to write a research proposal that is of standard value and follows all the rules and regulations set by educationalists


Assignment writing service usa

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well I hope you have a plan to lower corperate taxes and incentive bussiness to provide cost of living based jobs.

Cause as it stands many poor people live in cities where industry left to go over seas.

So there actually are not enough self sustaining jobs for everybody.

We have conservatively speaking 8.3 million unemployed and 109 million on wellfare for 6.8 million open jobs available many of which don't pay cost of living.

Of course we should lower corporate taxes--we're not competitive on the world market as it is.

As for jobs leaving and people remaining, that's on them. I grew up in California, and I have lived in South Carolina, Germany, Tennessee, and currently reside outside of Cincinnati in Northern Kentucky--every move was to follow the jobs.

And for the record, not every job should be "self sustaining;" we need low-wage, low-skilled jobs as starting points for young people just entering the workforce, or for older people who are bored and just want a simple job to keep them occupied, or for people between jobs in their career who just need a bit of income while job hunting, or many other scenarios. This myth to which you may or may not subscribe--that every job needs to provide a "living wage"--is utter asininity.

Here's a thought: Do away with the federal minimum wage, and let the job market figure out what is appropriate compensation for time/skill/effort.

(sorry for the late reply...I was happily away from computers for the past five days)

Also, from which source did you pull those employment/job numbers?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's actually worse than I presented. There are only 5.4 million job openings.

I am using the gov. Labor stats

If you are going to use young and non working people the figure of those not working is between 30-80 million between 16-65.

It s hardly as simple as people can just move .

For instance when industry leaves the value of your home tanks and nobody want to buy it.

It's far more complicated then your making it sound. I would blame the government for there uneven tariff policy that hurts the American worker and the tax policies that encourage moving and keeping money and industry over sea. The poor are a great scapegoat but it isn't they who created the issues in my opinion. You will always have lazy people but not at the proportion we are seeing.

The government wants you to believe it's these freeloaders so you don't examine what they are doing. Here is a pretty good site to check out statistics on jobs. Unemployment remember is people laid off looking for work for the most part. They manipulate those numbers to make it seem like they are doing their jobs and things are not that bad.

stateofworkingamerica.org...

www.gallup.com...

I am not saying there isn't personal responsibility but it isn't always the same situation for everyone. We can't assume everyone can do what you or I can do. Some people never had good parenting, the schools are a total failure, and in some cases the government fails to even protect their property from organized crime or polution like on Flint Michigan. Those people can't sell their homes with the lead problems of theu wanted to.

It's a mixed bag and in my opinion politicians try and make issues simple and make scapegoats for theor own failings.

Gary Johnson was able to help the poor and Ballance the budget as Govenor. It takes some integrity on the part of the statesman. As well as a willingness to work and listen to both parties and their constituates. Imo of coarse. I don't mean to say my opinion is the only one. You may be just as right.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Here's a thought: Do away with the federal minimum wage, and let the job market figure out what is appropriate compensation for time/skill/effort.

Do you have a single example from any time in history where poverty decreased and purchasing power increased when minimum wages and social safety nets were removed?

originally posted by: Aazadan
Do you have a single example from any time in history where poverty decreased and purchasing power increased when minimum wages and social safety nets were removed?

Do you have proof that it wouldn't?

My claim was not that it would do what you're asking me to prove, and I said nothing about social safety nets (federal minimum wage is not a "social safety net").

I will say this, though--it doesn't take a genius economist to understand that, if a business owner MUST pay an employee a certain wage, the cost of business increases, and therefore either:
(a) the cost of the product or service goes up (lowering purchasing power);
(b) the business uses less employees to do the same job (lowering overall available jobs), or;
(c) both.

So tell me how mandating a wage is the best of those two options.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The solution came out of a problem. If the solution wasn't a good one it doesn't mean there wasn't a problem.

You can also offset corperate taxes at the same time as raising min wage.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Do you have proof that it wouldn't?

Yes, many times throughout history. When you have lower wealth inequality, part of which is determined by a minimum wage the economy does better because you have more people participating in it.

My claim was not that it would do what you're asking me to prove, and I said nothing about social safety nets (federal minimum wage is not a "social safety net").

You cannot remove a minimum wage while leaving safety nets in place. When that happens the corporations will simply pay next to nothing and leave it to the tax payers to pick up the slack. The market forces you're referring to are only possible when people live on what they're paid and no more.

If you want to remove the minimum wage, the rest of society has to pick up the tab in the form of either welfare programs or a basic income.

I will say this, though--it doesn't take a genius economist to understand that, if a business owner MUST pay an employee a certain wage, the cost of business increases, and therefore either:

I assume that means you aren't a genius economist then, not that I have much respect for economic theory in the first place but you're not taking all factors into account. Most notably you aren't considering volume.

The wealthy do not make a proportionally greater volume of purchases or to put this another way someone making 1 million per year does not need 100x the man hours in upkeep for their lifestyle that the person who makes 10k per year does. If you spread 1 million among 10,000 people you will see 10,000 purchases for $100 each. If each purchase takes 3 minutes of labor to produce you've created 30,000 minutes of labor which is 500 hours or nearly 4 months worth of work. If you concentrate it however you're only going to see a handful of high end items purchased, say 50 items at $20,000 each and 1 hour per item. That's 50 hours of work, or just over 1 weeks labor.

This increase in labor generated through giving those lower on the income scale more purchasing power more than offsets the added expense to the business.