Drug Testing for Welfare recipents

[Spiderman]

I don't believe you are allowed to ask a job applicant if they are on welfare or not, so it would be difficult to conduct studies at that level.

Wait, so how'd they know the applicants were "on unemployment"?

Because of the way unemployment works, I would have to completely give those side projects up if I wanted to collect benefits.

Were the side projects bringing in more money than if you collected unemployment, or did you just like doing the side projects?

 

[DarthFerret]

#1. I do not know the specifics of Rush Limbaugh's drug use, but if he was caught partaking of illegal drugs, then yes, he should have gone to jail.

#2. I am not sure how you can say that drug use is an ethical thing. Same with alcohol abuse. I have been hit by a drunk driver (granted it was at 3 mph and no one was hurt, but still). I have seen the effects of drug use on others as well as the effects on one's self. There is no way in God's green earth you can convince me that drug usage is ok.

#3. Just a point of irony here. It is funny how the same people that want to "ban" tabbacco smoking are also the first ones to jump on the wagon to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. Where does your ethics arguments go on that one?

Agree with Ericbess somewhat. The system is flawed. When I was on unemployment, I was told by the social worker not to accept any job that paid less than 75% of what I previously made. Granted, I tried to ignore her on this one, but it still took me 13 months to land the job I now have. So yes, unemployment (and I can assume Welfare as well) has its use, but the system is flawed. However, even in a flawed system a person can still take the initiative to do what is right.

 

[turgy22]

#1. I do not know the specifics of Rush Limbaugh's drug use, but if he was caught partaking of illegal drugs, then yes, he should have gone to jail.

I don't know the specifics, either, but I'm pretty sure he was using legal drugs, but using them illegally, akin to getting a phony prescription.

#2. I am not sure how you can say that drug use is an ethical thing. Same with alcohol abuse. I have been hit by a drunk driver (granted it was at 3 mph and no one was hurt, but still). I have seen the effects of drug use on others as well as the effects on one's self. There is no way in God's green earth you can convince me that drug usage is ok.

I think you need to understand the difference between drug use and drug abuse. Drug abuse is bad. Doing anything dangerous under the influence of drugs is bad. Using drugs in such a way that you may cause harm to others is bad. All those things are bad, unethical, and should be illegal. But simply using drugs, in itself, is not bad or unethical.

To expand on your drunk driver example, the alcohol did not put anyone in harm's way. The usage of the alcohol did not put anyone in harm's way. Nothing unethical took place until that idiot decided to get behind the wheel of his car. That's why alcohol is legal and driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal. There's a very clear line between safe and dangerous.

Similarly, if someone wants to use marijuana in the privacy of their own home, I have no problem with that. If they get high to relax or have fun and do so in a safe environment, I believe that should be allowed. But if anyone using marijuana decided to do something dangerous while under the influence of the drug, they should be prosecuted just as someone who does so under the influence of alcohol.

#3. Just a point of irony here. It is funny how the same people that want to "ban" tabbacco smoking are also the first ones to jump on the wagon to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. Where does your ethics arguments go on that one?

That's an odd generalization and one I was not familiar with. Honestly, I've never heard of anyone who wanted to completely ban tobacco smoking. Most of the pot-smokers I've met actually smoked tobacco first. Much like marijuana use, I don't find anything unethical about tobacco use. I think that fact that it's been banned in bars and restaurants in certain areas is kind of ridiculous, tantamount to banning it in someone's home.

As you can probably tell, I support the legalization of marijuana, even though I don't use it and never intend to use it, legal or not. But I've read studies on the drug and the history behind its criminalization and I just see a huge waste of time and money trying to enforce laws against a drug that is no more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. Right now, this country wastes millions (probably billions) of dollars on finding, prosecuting and imprisoning minor drug offenders. Not only could we save all that money, but we could start regulating, taxing and growing marijuana locally, all of which would end up keeping money in this country and helping the economy. All that money's pouring into Mexico right now, fueling drug cartels and basically funding a war between those cartels and the Mexican government. Sooner or later, all that violence in Mexico is going to start pouring into the US (it's trickling in right now) and the most sensible, cost-effective way to stop it is simply by taking their revenue stream away and moving it to honest, law-abiding citizens who can actually be monitored and help accountable.

 

[Spiderman]

Wow. I agree with everything you said turgy22, except for this

I think that fact that it's been banned in bars and restaurants in certain areas is kind of ridiculous, tantamount to banning it in someone's home.

It actually isn't tantamount, since those are public places and others are affected. Like you said, privacy of the home is fine, out in enclosed public areas, not so much.

 

[turgy22]

I'm talking about privately-owned bars. Open to the public, yes, but it's still someone's individual business and I believe they have the right to run it the way they choose. If someone doesn't want to expose themselves to second-hand smoke, they have the right to avoid such establishments (thus costing those owners business). Conversely, I think a lot of smokers appreciate having a place where they can sit and socialize without having to go outside every time they want to smoke. I think they would be more likely to frequent a smoking-friendly establishment. As long as smoking/non-smoking places are required to advertise their status, I don't think there's any reason to force a place to accommodate either crowd.

 

[Spiderman]

Well, extending that further, they can basically discriminate against anyone they want, be it black, white, Asian, gay, disabled, cowboys, hicks, etc. 'cause it's privately owned. Where's the line drawn?

 

[Killer Joe]

Yes, yes they can and do. "The Rainbow" in Freeport, PA has a sign on the wall that says "No Coloreds"
I kid you NOT!

 

[turgy22]

Well, extending that further, they can basically discriminate against anyone they want, be it black, white, Asian, gay, disabled, cowboys, hicks, etc. 'cause it's privately owned. Where's the line drawn?

How did I know someone was going to reply with that argument?

There's a HUGE difference between discriminating based on a person's actions versus based on who a person is. This is why we have civil rights (if the place in KJ's example actually enforces what that sign says, they're breaking the law). A person can't change the fact that they're black, white, Asian, gay, disabled, a cowboy, a hick, etc. But a person can decide whether or not they're going to smoke a cigarette or not. And a proprietor should be allowed to decide if someone is allowed to smoke a cigarette on their property or not.

 

[Spiderman]

Good rebuttal. I'm not sure why it matters for actions and who a person is, since I thought the point was it's private property and the owner should be able to do what he wants since he, well, owns it.

But if a person can decide whether to smoke a cigarette or not, surely they can decide not to smoke it while in the property.

 

[turgy22]

Surely they can. So if they enter a no-smoking establishment, they'll have to refrain from smoking until they leave.

 

[rokapoke]

Surely they can. So if they enter a no-smoking establishment, they'll have to refrain from smoking until they leave.

Including bars.

Edit: I re-read your point regarding "privately-owned bars." First off, I am aware of no other kind of bar. I think it would be interesting to let bar owners decide if they would like to cater to a smokers-only crowd or a non-smoking crowd. Let the people determine which bars they would want to open (or attend), and let the market sort it out. That said, as someone with a sensitive nose, I like the blanket smoking ban. But I definitely would be open to a free-choice option -- just not a smoking/non-smoking section in one room, because that DOES NOT WORK.

 

[Spiderman]

turgy22: <shrug> And it seems to me that they can also refrain from smoking when a smoking ban is in effect, OR, go outside to smoke.

Now, I agree with you guys about the free choice thing. I already voiced my concerns about where the line is drawn.

 

[turgy22]

I guess I just don't think the government should be dictating what people can do on their own property. When the government makes broad bans on smoking areas, you end up with stupid crap like this.

 

[EricBess]

Wait, so how'd they know the applicants were "on unemployment"?

Because the people would tell them that when telling them why they were turning down the job offer.

I understand where turgy is coming from. Personally, I don't smoke and I have a very hard time breathing around people who are smoking. Honestly, if if they are not smoking, I don't like being around people who do smoke because you can still smell it on them. As people, I don't have a problem with them. I've had a lot of very good friends who smoked. But I don't like the smell or what it does to my alergies.

Public places should NOT allow smoking IMO, period. By "public", I do not mean private establishments. I personally think that most restaurants are best served by not allowing smoking. As someone who is sensitive to this, I can tell you that separating into a smoking and a non-smoking section is not sufficient. I don't know if laws are to thank for most restaurants not allowing smoking or if there is enough stigma and information now that in general, it just happened naturally, but I would never want to go back to the days when you couldn't go to any restaurant at all without having to be subjected to smoking.

Having said that, I agree with turgy that there are certain types of businesses that may want to specifically cater to that crowd and I think they should have every right to do so. Honestly, if they want to cater to specific nationalities, I don't personally have a problem with that also, but they are going to have to live with the social stigma of doing so. However, I think in practice, this would never be a problem.

If you look historically, most of the problems with racisim and "separate, but equal" stemmed not from the people, but from the laws that were in place. There were certainly some very influential people that were bigots, but the vast majority of the populace didn't have a problem with intermingling. Laws were put into place because of those vocal few and people ended up having to enforce the laws. So, when you talk about the "back of the bus" or "separate drinking fountains", most people think how awful everyone was, but it really was just a few idiots that caused the "Jim Crow" laws to be put into place. Everyone now days seems to think that we needed laws to make sure that everyone was treated properly, but the truth is that we needed to just have avoided having the bad laws in the first place and 95% of the time, there would never have been a problem in the first place. Point being - most people want customers more than they care about the color of the customer.

 

[DarthFerret]

Hmm...sounds like I am the only smoker on this board (or at least in this thread). As a smoker, I can tell you that most of the restaurants that started a smoking ban, did it because of a city law that got passed. I can also tell you, from my perspective, that I do feel discriminated against merely because I like to smoke. My smoking is legal, and until it is made an illegal act (much the way that Marijuana and other drugs are illegal now), I should be allowed to smoke outside, anywhere. As for inside establishments, I agreed with the seperation of smoking vs. non smoking areas. However, no offense to people here with sensitive noses, but just because a couple of people may not like it, does not give people the right to ban something. Personally, I am bothered by peoples children, especially when they are not keeping them calm and quiet. Should we now ban children from restaurants because they are offending me?...of course not. I get offended by a group in a restaurant that is not speaking english (and generally being loud about it). Should they be banned? What about overweight people, who may offend the eyes? Ugly people? Homosexuals? See, if we start banning everything that offends people, no one will be able to go anywhere. I think the government should butt out of any business and let that business handle themselves (other than actual illegal activity of course).

 

[Mooseman]

Hey DF, I hear you. I too smoke and find the ban on smoking in bars is so over the line. If people don't like the smoke then don't go to those bars, the dollars will vote if it's a good thing or a bad thing. Also, all banning smoking in bars is doing is forcing them all out on the street in big groups to bother anyone in the area.
Let's see, Football game, alcohol, and now the crowd runs outside for a smoke at every break..... hey that's great thinking.
I can understand restaurants, but I miss going to the local dinner and having a cup of coffee and a smoke while talking with friends.....
I rarely say let the market decide, because it's usually wrong, but this is one time that it should decide.
Public places.... heck yeah, no smoking.... but some places are banning it outdoors, in parking lots (colleges and medical center) and in your car if you are in said parking lot........

 

[turgy22]

Personally, I am bothered by peoples children, especially when they are not keeping them calm and quiet. Should we now ban children from restaurants because they are offending me?...of course not. I get offended by a group in a restaurant that is not speaking english (and generally being loud about it). Should they be banned? What about overweight people, who may offend the eyes? Ugly people? Homosexuals? See, if we start banning everything that offends people, no one will be able to go anywhere. I think the government should butt out of any business and let that business handle themselves (other than actual illegal activity of course).

This response cracks me up. Smoking bans aren't in place to prevent people from being offended; they're in place to decrease the risk of prevent people from getting cancer. To the best of my knowledge, all the things you mention do not cause increase the risk of cancer when exposed to them.

 

[DarthFerret]

Actually, smoking does not CAUSE cancer (But it does increase your chances of getting cancer). However, also, your response is flawed because that has been the response to smoking for many many years, yet it is only recently that smoking bans have been going up. Secondhand smoke is not nearly as dangerous as it was once thought, and most establishments had seperate areas for smoking. And again, if you did not want to be around smoke, you just don't go to those places.

 

[train]

Question: Should Rush Limbaugh be in jail for illegal drug use?

Yes - unless the statute of limitations has passed...

 

[turgy22]

Fixed my previous response to more accurately reflect the effects of second-hand smoke on one's health. Regardless of whether or not second-hand smoke is "not nearly as dangerous as once thought," it still increases the chance of getting cancer, so my point remains. Being offended by something and having your health effected by something are completely different things. It's a terribly analogy. And I'm actually opposed to smoking bans.

Edit: I'm actually not sure how inaccurate my original statement was. A cursory look through Google shows multiple sites explicitly stating "Secondhand smoke causes cancer." I tried to avoid blatantly anti-smoking sites and campaigns (like truth.com), so the results aren't terribly biased. The American Cancer Society, Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Disease Control, and WebMD all seem to agree that secondhand smoke is really bad for you and causes lung cancer. Maybe someone else can find a more reputable site to discredit these claims.