Michigan Foodstamp Program Soon To Require Drug Tests

[solabeirtan]

I've been complaining about usury most of my adult life.  I like to use it as an example of how our society has twisted the word of Christ by changing the meaning of a word over time to make it mean something that it didn't mean in Christ's time.

 

Usury evolved from meaning "interest" to meaning "excessive interest."  It's a travesty.

I share your same insights and mission Celli...

 

Here's an interesting timeline of the beast raising his head.

 

Americans for Fairness in Lending 

...With credit to James M. Ackerman,  Interest Rates and the Law:  A History of Usury, 1981, Arizona St. L.J.61 (1981)

 

"What do Hammurabi, Plato, Charlemagne, Dante and Queens Mary and Elizabeth have in common?  They all condemned, outlawed or regulated the charging of interest on loans.  In fact, until the early 1900s interest rates in the United States were kept at or near 10%.  And until 1979, loan laws provided some interest rate cap in every state.

Then everything changed.  Governments and banks put profits before people. And now the lending industry is spiraling out of control."

 

...Peace...

[GregS]

Greg you did it you figured it out. It's not our God we've been worshipping. It's there God, our Nations Bankers? It's an impostor. Appointed by WoodRow W., Dec 23, 1913 and they Christened it the FED. So we had National Soverenity for xx years 1776 - 1913. Sorta. It was the birth of a Nation. Then sadly its demise. As we grasped for freedom, we showed we had the power to touch the stars. [Ok it was our own moon, but hey we in the Book, Guiness that is.] Where we go from here. I think we have to put on the thinking caps again. MaYBE TURN TO A NEWER GENERATION. Something ....

I can't take credit for figuring it out. It is called Mammon, one of the seven Princes of Hell, and has been around for a loong time. The Koran condemns business practices that are now common too.

 

But yeah. This thing that is worshiped is not any notion of the divine.

[Celliach]

Now let's get back to the subject.

 

When did drug testing start?  1980s

 

When did the "war on Drugs" really get started?  1980s

 

Drug testing came of vogue at the same time that the anorexic b-tch Nancy Reagan was telling everyone to, "Just say no!"  It was, and still is, one of the most important tools of the anti-drug crusaders.  Nobody, nobody, drug tested before the Reagan's ramped up the drug war.  The insurance companies jumped on the band wagon because they saw one more way to deny coverage to their customers, and they needed something quick because the courts were striking lie detector tests.  Does anyone remember during the late 70s, early 80s when you couldn't get a job unless you took a lie detector test?  The courts ruled them illegal as eveidence of any type and the insurance companies pushed drug tests instead.

 

If you think that any condoning of drug testing isn't defending the drug war, you are simply coming to the wrong conclusion.  If there wasn't a drug war, there simply wouldn't be drug testing.  It still remains one of their most effective weapons they use against us, and yes, I said us.  I'm including all the people using MMJ in states where it's not legal yet.  Drug testing is hurting the guy in Iowa using MMJ during cancer treatment.  It's hurting the guy in Alabama that worked in a farm field all his life and is using it for chronic back pain.  It's hurting the woman going blind from glaucoma in Pennsylvania.

 

Drug testing is more about one small program in one state.  IMO, no MMJ patient should be advocating drug testing for anything.  It's a betrayal of other MMJ patients that are not as fortunate as we are to live in a medical legal state.

[northerngal]

Perhaps some of the "war on drugs" has merit then??  I have seen illegal and perscription drugs ruin the lives of several people.  (NOT speaking in terms of mmj or ALL of the drugs on the list)  

Can you personally claim that all the drugs on the list Mal posted are "safe" and not a threat to abusers ?  

 

I feel a big part of this issue is too many people feel entitled to benefits from the state and government.  There are certain entitlements we have, but depending on others to support us, is not one.  Don't get me wrong- when people need a true hand up - I will be one of the first in line to help offer it.  But when they believe they deserve it without reason or abuse the purpose.....

 

As I said before, people wonder why so many think their mmj should be covered by their cg......same sense of entitlement.

 

 

  I stated my opinion and you yours. We could go back and forth all day, but truly what is the point?  Will it change this bill?  Will it help people feel less entitled?  Will it make Michigan a better place? 

[Celliach]

It seems like you're advocating the War on Drugs because people are ruining their lives over drugs.

 

I know guys that totally ruined their lives over a woman, and vice versa.  I've seen people ruin their lives over a bad investment.  I've seen people ruin their lives over alcohol.  I've seen people ruin their lives over many types of bad decisions.  Our job is to help people when they make mistakes, not punish them.

 

What I'm trying to point out is the fallacy of the drug war meme that has been drilled into people's heads since the 80s, even among the people within our own culture,  It just goes to show how effective social brainwashing can be.

 

BTW, if you know people abusing the system illegally as you claim, why haven't you done something about it?

[solabeirtan]

In the sake of straightening out your time line. The "War on Drugs" was another time, the Nixonian Empire [1953-1974], he shamed our military in Vietnam, he shamed our country when he went to China and for an oncore he shamed the office of President of the United States,,.  As he opened the door to China, albiet the back door, he also adopted some of their most oppressive techniques of political control. As well as some of the most heinous acts of treason ever accomplished in the history of Warfare.  

 

Mankind had not seen inhumanity in these proportions since our military/industrial complex that had subsumed us, on the exact date that our 32nd Presidents' Unbeliavably Untimely passing. Previously serving as Mayor of NY from 1929 he became president also in 1932.  God Rest his soul...FDR 

 

Reagun is another era of repressive measures. He giddily announced the end of the "War on Poverty" he touted "... yes and the poor people lost! " Even though he was one of the instigators of McCarthys' Commies in Hollywood, as President of the ScreenActorsGuild, he was only to quick to offer up the list of official commies.  Damm the Air Traffic controllers, too ....your history... 

Now let's get back to the subject.

 

When did drug testing start?  1980s

 

When did the "war on Drugs" really get started?  1980s

Edited May 7, 2013 by solabeirtan

[Celliach]

I know Nixon started it, that why I said "really started."  Nixon's idea of the drug war was stopping drugs in other countries.  Maybe in retrospect I should have written "When did the War on Drugs really start effecting American citizens directly?"  The drug testing, minimum sentencing , and three strike rules on drug convictions.

 

Also, it doesn't matter when started even if it was 30 long years ago, it continues unbroken until today under the same auspices and for the same reasons.

[GregS]

My thoughts are that drug use and abuse must come to be a public health, rather than police or criminal, issue. Having done volunteer work in a residential half-way house for drug and alcohol addicted people, it became apparent that these were not often bad people. I have a reputation among family and friends as not having the propensity to addiction, as it was possible to simply quit using tobacco for lengths of time before finally giving it up completely, and in no small regard for my health. When I did use it I never much smoked at home, but at work and socializing. The same can be said for alcohol. For that reason, I cannot fully understand addiction except to know that it is a horrible cross for a minority of people within any population to bear, having seen the down side, although I recently had first hand experience with withdrawal from opiates, which I kicked myself. Close family members and friends have wigged out when deprived of their drug of choice, pointing up just how absolutely pernicious addiction is. To penalize anyone for use is offensive. Cannabis has by far the least addictive profile among them, except maybe chewing gum.

 

"I stated my opinion and you yours. We could go back and forth all day, but truly what is the point?  Will it change this bill?  Will it help people feel less entitled?  Will it make Michigan a better place?"

 

The bill will not survive the court challenges that will arise if it is passed in any form that violates Constitutional rights. Because that cannot be done, we are having fun arguing its merits, or lack or the lack of them. And yes, keeping this important matter within pubic discourse is necessary to shine a light on those fools who claim to be good Americans, and are rather anything but, and helps to ensure that the practice does not become policy.

Edited May 7, 2013 by GregS

[northerngal]

It seems like you're advocating the War on Drugs because people are ruining their lives over drugs.

 

I know guys that totally ruined their lives over a woman, and vice versa.  I've seen people ruin their lives over a bad investment.  I've seen people ruin their lives over alcohol.  I've seen people ruin their lives over many types of bad decisions.  Our job is to help people when they make mistakes, not punish them.

 

What I'm trying to point out is the fallacy of the drug war meme that has been drilled into people's heads since the 80s, even among the people within our own culture,  It just goes to show how effective social brainwashing can be.

 

BTW, if you know people abusing the system illegally as you claim, why haven't you done something about it?

 

Did I say I hadn't done anything about it?  Perhaps I have done what you recommend.....utilized my time and knowledge to HELP them become less of a leech to the system, become independent and lead self sufficient lives.   Perhaps I do more than sit behind a keyboard and type about things that should be done.  Perhaps I have even spent 40++ hours a week for half my adult life doing just that.  Perhaps it is how I "know" this pattern of behavior exists.  (its not as if I go roaming the streets seeking to find those that fit the description...)

 

I agree - many lives are ruined over many bad choices including the ones you list.....BUT.....if we have a chance to help deter some of those choices, shouldn't we do that?  Some people, as you say, do not think well for themselves and need guidance, direction and sometimes punishment!!  Perhaps the same choices wouldn't be made or repeated. 

[Celliach]

I agree - many lives are ruined over many bad choices including the ones you list.....BUT.....if we have a chance to help deter some of those choices, shouldn't we do that?  Some people, as you say, do not think well for themselves and need guidance, direction and sometimes punishment!!  Perhaps the same choices wouldn't be made or repeated. 

 

OK, fine, then we have to keep people from having sexual relationships, from investing money, from drinking, from getting into fights, from playing with matches..............

 

And, they should be punished if they do any of those things.

[northerngal]

OK, fine, then we have to keep people from having sexual relationships, from investing money, from drinking, from getting into fights, from playing with matches..............

 

And, they should be punished if they do ant of those things.

 

Now you are bringing this to a different point of topic, but I will play along.   YES, if those behaviors are ruining peoples lives....I think they should be addressed.  (some already are - thus the reason for gambling hotlines, AA, anger management classes and regulations on burning)

 

I did say in some instances....punishment.  If you break the rules, punishment ensues.  Is this not ingrained in most as children??  Should life have no rules and/or guidelines?  (not claiming here that all punishment is fair and just nor does it always "fit the crime" )

[Celliach]

Wow!

 

Compassion.

[northerngal]

My thoughts are that drug use and abuse must come to be a public health, rather than police or criminal, issue. Having done volunteer work in a residential half-way house for drug and alcohol addicted people, it became apparent that these were not often bad people. I have a reputation among family and friends as not having the propensity to addiction, as it was possible to simply quit using tobacco for lengths of time before finally giving it up completely, and in no small regard for my health. When I did use it I never much smoked at home, but at work and socializing. The same can be said for alcohol. For that reason, I cannot fully understand addiction except to know that it is a horrible cross for a minority of people within any population to bear, having seen the down side, although I recently had first hand experience with withdrawal from opiates, which I kicked myself. Close family members and friends have wigged out when deprived of their drug of choice, pointing up just how absolutely pernicious addiction is. To penalize anyone for use is offensive. Cannabis has by far the least addictive profile among them, except maybe chewing gum.

 

"I stated my opinion and you yours. We could go back and forth all day, but truly what is the point?  Will it change this bill?  Will it help people feel less entitled?  Will it make Michigan a better place?"

 

The bill will not survive the court challenges that will arise if it is passed in any form that violates Constitutional rights. Because that cannot be done, we are having fun arguing its merits, or lack or the lack of them. And yes, keeping this important matter within pubic discourse is necessary to shine a light on those fools who claim to be good Americans, and are rather anything but, and helps to ensure that the practice does not become policy.

 

Please explain to me HOW this violates constitutional rights.  Is receiving money from the state a consititutional right?  Is abusing controlled substances a right?  Perhaps I am missing a key component here.  I read how another state deemed it unconstitutional, but it had nothing to do with the law itself, more of process of how they were carrying it out.

[solabeirtan]

I know Nixon started it, that why I said "really started."  Nixon's idea of the drug war was stopping drugs in other countries.  Maybe in retrospect I should have written "When did the War on Drugs really start effecting American citizens directly?"  The 8- saw drug testing, minimum sentencing , and three strike rules on drug convictions.

 

Also, it doesn't matter when started even if it was 30 long years ago, it continues unbroken until today under the same auspices and for the same reasons.

Just tryin to be helpful, you know and I know but my comment was for those who might not. Nixon created his own in country Banana-Republic style goons, the DEA, to insure the best interests of the Plantaion Owners and their unique form of Industrial Agriculture.  He had a thing about Latin America due to some incidents he was involved in while visiting there in the '50s.

 

Yes 30 years, we know its been much longer than that, really. But I would have to insist that we broke it some time ago, here in MI, in 2008,  we began reaping those benefits. With WA & CO, now we're following a wounded beast.

Edited May 7, 2013 by solabeirtan

[Celliach]

I'm confused how a person could condemn and punish someone for using the drug of their choice, when all the while the person doing the condemning is also doing the drug of their choice.

 

It just seems to me that you are saying they are wrong for doing the same thing you are doing.

 

Does anyone else see that?

[northerngal]

Wow!

 

Compassion

Passing judgements now?

 

How does compassion come into play here?

 

Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

 

I have plenty of concern and pity for mankind!   How is drug abuse or abuse of the system considered suffering or misfortune?  I did not say that programs for the poor and less fortunate should not exist.  (just the opposite) 

 

Go ahead, continue insulting me, I am thick skinned and know what lies within myself.  I will continue with my work and you can continue to criticize everyone and their opinions, when they are not in line with your own.   I respected you and others in this conversation and had for many years....until you began personal attacks due to a differing of opinion. 

[northerngal]

I'm confused how a person could condemn and punish someone for using the drug of their choice, when all the while the person doing the condemning is also doing the drug of their choice.

 

It just seems to me that you are saying they are wrong for doing the same thing you are doing.

 

Does anyone else see that?

 

Now you want others to speak out against my opinion too?  Opinions are just that, not a matter of "right and wrong" here.    Perhaps you are assuming too much.   How do you concur marijuana is my "drug of choice"?  Do you not agree that there are many drugs on the list that are potentially DANGEROUS if abused?   Do not try to put words into MY mouth.  You do a good job of ignoring points and questions offered at you and hurling your own back.  GREAT WORK!  Just the kind of behavior that deters people from coming here to the 3MA!! 

[Celliach]

When I said "Does anyone else see that?" I was trying to be polite and not call you out in particular so I made it open ended.  I'm not trying to get others to get down on you, It was, in fact, addressed to you.

[Celliach]

Potentially dangerous, yes.  Crossing the street, going hunting, driving a car, flying, breathing, eating are all "potentially" dangerous.  I never put anything in your mouth you didn't say.  I'm just taking your logic line and following it through.  

 

Give me a question on the subject and I'll answer to the best of my ability.  I honestly wasn't aware that I hadn't answered a question asked of me.

[northerngal]

Potentially dangerous, yes.  Crossing the street, going hunting, driving a car, flying, breathing, eating are all "potentially" dangerous.  I never put anything in your mouth you didn't say.  I'm just taking your logic line and following it through.  

 

You are making a play on words here.  Changing things to fit your concepts.  Abusing a drug or the "system" is not in the same ballpark as breathing or crossing a street.  Living is potentially dangerous.  Let me ask you this..... If you have a friend that chooses to drive while intoxicated with alcohol, would you not try to intervene?  Same concept -  if I see someone that is choosing to do something that has a high propensity of being dangerous, I would do everything I could to educate them on a "safer alternative"/a different method or help them find the help they require to avoid the preventable, potentially dangerous activity and the punishments that may ensue.

[GregS]

Please explain to me HOW this violates constitutional rights.  Is receiving money from the state a consititutional right?  Is abusing controlled substances a right?  Perhaps I am missing a key component here.  I read how another state deemed it unconstitutional, but it had nothing to do with the law itself, more of process of how they were carrying it out.

Government benefits are not rights. The Fourth Amendment provides the right to be free from government search and seizure without a warrant. The bill violates it. The Fifth Amendment provides the right to refuse to answer if that answer will incriminate you under the law. The bill requires that people who exercise that right by refusing to participate in the required testing violates that. The Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments provide a more generalized degree of privacy protections. Everything this bill does is a violation of those rights. Much like Roe v Wade was decided on these, and the First Amendment, which might apply here too, the practice they protect is not the right per se, but is necessarily qualified by the supreme law of the land.

Edited May 7, 2013 by GregS

[Northern Lab]

The constitutional and moral arguments aside, I thought Florida proved the concept a failure at both detecting drug users on assistance and saving the state money. Iirc, they had a testing failure rate of about 2%. The money saved by kicking a few people off assistance was dwarfed by the cost of testing everyone.

 

I understand the sentiment behind why folks would support this sort of thing, I just don't think it's proven to be at all effective in accomplishing its stated goals.

[northerngal]

The bill passed by the house does not require EVERYONE in the program be tested.  Only those that do not "pass" the initial screening. 

 

(3) UPON INITIAL APPLICATION AND AT ANNUAL REDETERMINATION,

3 THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SCREEN FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM APPLICANTS

4 AND RECIPIENTS FOR SUSPICION OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE USING AN

5 EMPIRICALLY VALIDATED SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING TOOL.

 

6 (4) IF THE RESULTS OF THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING GIVES THE

7 DEPARTMENT A REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT OR

8 RECIPIENT HAS ENGAGED IN THE ILLEGAL USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE,

9 THE APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE A SUBSTANCE ABUSE

10 TEST.

[GregS]

The constitutional and moral arguments aside, I thought Florida proved the concept a failure at both detecting drug users on assistance and saving the state money. Iirc, they had a testing failure rate of about 2%. The money saved by kicking a few people off assistance was dwarfed by the cost of testing everyone.

 

I understand the sentiment behind why folks would support this sort of thing, I just don't think it's proven to be at all effective in accomplishing its stated goals.

That is the practical argument against the bill. It is self defeating in terms of cost.

[GregS]

The bill passed by the house does not require EVERYONE in the program be tested.  Only those that do not "pass" the initial screening. 

 

(3) UPON INITIAL APPLICATION AND AT ANNUAL REDETERMINATION,

3 THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SCREEN FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM APPLICANTS

4 AND RECIPIENTS FOR SUSPICION OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE USING AN

5 EMPIRICALLY VALIDATED SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING TOOL.

 

6 (4) IF THE RESULTS OF THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING GIVES THE

7 DEPARTMENT A REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT OR

8 RECIPIENT HAS ENGAGED IN THE ILLEGAL USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE,

9 THE APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE A SUBSTANCE ABUSE

10 TEST.

Regardless, it is an unlawful intrusion on these people's privacy, as is spelled out in those laws that have been pointed out. Constitutional law is perhaps not within the grasp of some. Hey. Chief Justice Roberts makes $223,500 per year. Judge Judy? 25M plus. Maybe that is because he is stupid, and she ain't.