reply to post by skeptic1
Mighty interesting here!
I can see both sides...
...quite frankly, if someone is opposed to giving money to drug users / dealers then why should they have to??
I argue this same point for quite literally everything we're all taxed for.
As against the war on drugs I am, I have to support this. At the very least people should be able to choose whether to fund everyone, or just non-drug
users, or nobody for that matter.
Originally posted by shockologist
The testing should start much earlier than welfare if they truly want to tackle the problem....
Want to drive? Pee in a cup.
Want to Vote? see above
Want a HS diploma ...well I think you can see where I am going with this.
By the time people get to the point where they need welfare it is generally too late for their addiction. Catch it early and maybe the next
generation will have a chance.
I'm rabidly opposed to everything you've said there.
Let people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others... oh, wait, peeing in a cup wont do much about people who go drinking one night. You
clearly don't know much about much of anything in the world. If you've never partied, you can't possibly know much about people, or consciousness, for
starters.
Back on point, I can see this drug testing thing ending up lop-sided against pot smokers, as most other drugs leave the system within a few days,
although with junkies there's good odds they'd be doing it everyday, whereas crack heads have to wait until they get paid so they can blow it all in a
night or two. Just because somebody took a toke off a doob a few weeks ago shouldn't mean they get canceled out. Furthermore, alcohol leaves the
system in a day, so drunks get a free ride. Oh, yeah, that's legal, so that's a-okay!! This system is a (bad) joke.
edit on 12-9-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)