In the Rush Limbaugh thread, pd made the statement that drug testing for welfare is based on racism. I don't doubt it, but I am having trouble understanding why.

Half my facebook friends have joined that stupid group.

I heard this is racist.

Well for what reason would we actually be testing them? Is it because they are doing something illegal or because they're wasting their money on drugs? If it's the latter shouldn't we be restricting welfare recipients from participating in anything that costs money and isn't a necessity?

Here is a pretty cogent analysis.

http://wtfiswrong.com/2010/01/making-dr ... n-welfare/

And as the author of that blog noted, the comments section of the FB group is just FILLED with racist comments. Like I said, if the KKK is on your side in a debate, that should be a hint and a half for your ass that you're probably on the wrong side of the debate.

If you proof that the idea originally stemmed from rasists, that's obviously a much harder research task.

I wouldn't be opposed to drug-testing radio station employees.

But isn't that offset by having Jesse Jackson and Reverand Wright on your side?

You can assemble lots of anecdotal evidence to support the idea however.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31959.html

S.C. Lt. Gov.: Poor like 'stray animals'
By: Andy Barr
January 25, 2010 12:57 PM EST

South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has compared those on government assistance to “stray animals,” saying that the reason you stop feeding animals is that “they breed.”

Bauer is one of the leading Republican candidates for governor and gained national prominence after calling on Republican Gov. Mark Sanford to resign after his admission to an affair with an Argentine woman. But Bauer now finds himself in hot water for his remarks to a town hall meeting on Friday.

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed,” Bauer said during a speech advocating that the government take away assistance to those who do not pass drug tests.

“You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply,” Bauer added, according to a report in the Greenville News. “They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”

Bauer, who grew up in a working-class family, said parents whose children receive free, or subsidized, lunches at school should stop receiving government benefits if they do not attend parent-teacher conferences.

“You go to a school where there’s an active participation of parents, and guess what? They have the highest test scores,” Bauer said. “So what do you do? You say, ‘Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don't attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits.’”

The comments have become the focus of the state’s heated gubernatorial campaign, dominating headlines in South Carolina’s political press.

Bauer did not respond to a request to comment, but has defended the remarks by saying the “stray animals” comparison was taken out of context.

Nice try. False equivalency is false.

*EDIT* But truthfully, whenever there is an unsavory character on my side in a debate, it DOES make me take an extra look at my position to see if it makes sense.

Yeah, before we could ever do anything like this we'd need a more consistent system of the legality of substances that are commonly abused. So the pothead is denied but the wine-o is given a check.

Welp, there go the radio stations.

I don't have a problem with this comment. I think anyone receiving direct payment from the government should be held accountable that it is a temporary thing and not something passed on to their kids. As education is pretty much the answer, I don't see how requiring those receiving government benefits doing what is necessary to help ensure their kids do not end up in the same place.

Almost all drug testing is stupid and wrong.

why, if youre paying someone a very decent wage you have the right to know they arent going to fuck it up. what my company does, there are people out there that will steal from patients to supply their need, and then get defensive when caught

So true. The specification of which 'drug' speaks to what PD was saying in the Limbaugh thread. True story: the former coworker I had that has embedded herself with my family talks tremendous amounts of smack on her niece that is at a disadvantage due to her drug use. This coworker took custody of her niece's children. Mind you this woman talks smack like the stereotypical bigotted welfare proponent, and yet when it comes to herself receiving a welfare check because her nephews are a financial burden which she voluntarily took on herself she's the first person demanding the paperwork to be expedited. This woman also expects that her tremendous beer budget is overlooked when her welfare case is re-evaluated.

She's white, btw. And a Vikings fan.
Karmic justice served ala the Saints.

Why not make theft illegal instead? What I do in my own time is my own business.

and the type of person that a company hires is their business

touche

In a lot of cases, drug or alcohol use can impair a person's performance. It all depends on the job you do tho. If you're a musician, or poet, or artist, I would argue that drug use can help the creative process.

Again, speaking towards my former coworker when she showed up hung over something fierce on Monday mornings she was about worthless and also just a shitty personality to be around.

I don't have a problem with this either. It's done pretty widely now in the developing world, with good results. Really just boils down to common sense.

Really? I agree with chud when he says what he does in his time is his business, but when a crane operator drops a ton of bricks on me when I am surveying a construction site, and it is because he came to work all methed out or cracked out, I'm going to be pissed if I die. What would your solution be to these types of scenarios if you think drug testing is wrong? Maybe a morning "impairment" test is the answer?