Michigan Foodstamp Program Soon To Require Drug Tests

[Celliach]

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.

I'm trying to point out that you think it is alright to limit people's behavior and punish them for using an illegal drug, all the while that you are using a drug that is considered illegal in the majority of the country.

 

Did you use MMJ before the MMMA was passed?  If so, then you were doing the exact same thing that you agree these people should be punished for.  What drug it is doesn't matter.  Are you saying that nobody has ever abused marijuana?  I can tell you right nowm that I did while I was a teenager, and a lot of people if they're honest, will say the same.

 

When that argument falls apart, you contend that we have to prevent people from self-destructive behavior, but you only want that to apply to what you believe is self-destructive, or is self-destructive to a certain dangerous level to the individual.  You're saying that it's alright to push your moral agenda as lawful.  We all have different morals.  Very devout Christians think masturbation is self-destructive.  Do we outlaw masturbation?  Do we make it so people that masturbate can't get government benefits?  They might spend that money on self-sexual gratification toys, or lubricant. Who decides what self-destructive behavior is?

 

What about a single mother that uses MMJ, but can't afford to get certified and is hoping to use a Section 8 defense if she has to?  She will now be kicked out of this program, and you're lumping her into a group of people that you consider self-destructive and worthy of punishment.

 

Helping your friend by hiding the keys when he's too drunk to drive is not the same as calling the cops on him.  In this particular case, welfare recipient drug tests, you're saying the government should do the job, and you want the people to be punished by the government as part of that job.  That's a far cry from helping your friend.  That's turning your friend in.  You agree that we should educate, but you also agree that we should punish by drug testing.

[northerngal]

You are saying that not allowing them to be part of a program (that is not an entitlement) is punishing them?  Then by all means not allowing a person a job due to a drug test is punishment OR turning someone away from a pain management program for using substances not prescribed is also punishment.  I view these as preequisites rather than punishment. 

 

Are we to have no rules to follow/no guidelines in life??

 

I was not aware that marijuana was a dangerous drug.  Nor do I agree with its classification.  (although that means naught in the eyes of the law)  I do agree with the classification of many others on the list. 

 

Where did I ever suggest calling the cops on ANYONE?  (again putting words into my mouth)

 

I do not have sufficient time to address the rest of your response, but will later when I return home.  (do not want you to think I am avoiding the answers)

[+Malamute]

Now I totally disagree with drug testing, but even if you believe in drug testing,... why punish the individual who tested positive for drugs by kicking them out of the FIP program?  Why not just make all cash benefits go to a different responsible adult who can pay the bills for them?  I mean, we are talking about $400 bucks here. To mothers with kids and people taking care of disabled peoples.  How many living expenses does that cover?  :-)

 

 Give them the option of rehab I guess, it doesn't really work; and we have to pay for that as well,... more tax money to do rehab. And allow another responsible adult to allocate their cash funds.

 

 And I don't even agree with that,... but, isn't that more sensible than what Michigan is doing? 

 

 I helped fight and kill this bill last session btw.  ALEC has pushed this bill heavy though. All over the country.

 

 The Republican solution to everything. Drug test and kick the weak while they are down, then spend 20 times the money on corporate welfare.

[+Malamute]

Also, most people kicked out will be because of marijuana because it stays in your system so long. That is how it has always been.

 

Urine testing for heroin? 2-4 days or as little as hours. Urine testing for cocaine? 2-4 days or as little as hours. Urine testing for LSD? doesn't really exist. Urine testing for psilocybin? 2 days.  Urine testing for Exctasy? 2-4 days. Opiates? 2-4 days.

 

 Marijuana? 15-30 daysish.

 

 

So,.... Who are we actually targeting with this program?

 

You can snort an eightball of coke on Saturday night and pass your urine test on Monday.

 

Smoke one joint for new years and get busted out in February.

[+Malamute]

Btw, ... there is a possible argument for the legality of "suspicion based testing".  And here we go with a whole nother result of the drug war..." Reasonable Suspicion" vs "probable cause".

 

I would say, there must be probable cause to test(even if legal), whereas this whole concept of "reasonable suspicion" being enough for the government to make me give them my bodily fluids is total BS.

[CaveatLector]

Btw, ... there is a possible argument for the legality of "suspicion based testing".  And here we go with a whole nother result of the drug war..." Reasonable Suspicion" vs "probable cause".

 

I would say, there must be probable cause to test(even if legal), whereas this whole concept of "reasonable suspicion" being enough for the government to make me give them my bodily fluids is total BS.

Probable cause is necessary to compel testing by the state.  However, the state could (and I don't know the details in the current bill or law) require testing as a condition of receiving benefits.  The state then is not compelling the individual to undergo testing it is just holding a carrot in front of you.  The state can require info from you in order to hand out benefits.  It holds a carrot by requiring your social security number, income, and other personal info such as net value of assets.  If you don't provide certain info you don't get benefits.  How is drug testing (non-invasive such as pee in a cup) any different? 

[GregS]

Probable cause is necessary to compel testing by the state.  However, the state could (and I don't know the details in the current bill or law) require testing as a condition of receiving benefits.  The state then is not compelling the individual to undergo testing it is just holding a carrot in front of you.  The state can require info from you in order to hand out benefits.  It holds a carrot by requiring your social security number, income, and other personal info such as net value of assets.  If you don't provide certain info you don't get benefits.  How is drug testing (non-invasive such as pee in a cup) any different? 

Umm, rendering unto Mammon the things that are Mammon's?

Edited May 8, 2013 by GregS

[Celliach]

Why don't we just urine test EVERYONE getting state money.  I'll agree to that.  I don't think we should single out one segment of the population to put under this restriction while ignoring others.

 

Pee test everyone that draws a paycheck form the state.  

 

All politicians getting paid with public funds.....pee test.

 

All cops and firemen and city street workers and sanitation engineers......pee test.

 

Dog catcher, mine inspector, receptionist at city hall, prison guard, and all clerks and secretaries.....pee test.

 

Anybody that works at the highway department, or the health department, all employees of the DNR and the DMV.......pee test.

 

That would include anyone working for a contractor collecting state money too.  All construction crews for example........pee test.

 

Let's not just single out one group, test everyone. 

 

So yes, I am saying it's punishment to single out one group and not others.

[ozzrokk]

Why don't we just urine test EVERYONE getting state money.  I'll agree to that.  I don't think we should single out one segment of the population to put under this restriction while ignoring others.

 

Pee test everyone that draws a paycheck form the state.  

 

All politicians getting paid with public funds.....pee test.

 

All cops and firemen and city street workers and sanitation engineers......pee test.

 

Dog catcher, mine inspector, receptionist at city hall, prison guard, and all clerks and secretaries.....pee test.

 

Anybody that works at the highway department, or the health department, all employees of the DNR and the DMV.......pee test.

 

That would include anyone working for a contractor collecting state money too.  All construction crews for example........pee test.

 

Let's not just single out one group, test everyone. 

 

So yes, I am saying it's punishment to single out one group and not others.

 

 

Sounds fair......

 

I mean if your gonna do it? Right?

[GregS]

Why don't we just urine test EVERYONE getting state money.  I'll agree to that.  I don't think we should single out one segment of the population to put under this restriction while ignoring others.

 

Pee test everyone that draws a paycheck form the state.  

 

All politicians getting paid with public funds.....pee test.

 

All cops and firemen and city street workers and sanitation engineers......pee test.

 

Dog catcher, mine inspector, receptionist at city hall, prison guard, and all clerks and secretaries.....pee test.

 

Anybody that works at the highway department, or the health department, all employees of the DNR and the DMV.......pee test.

 

That would include anyone working for a contractor collecting state money too.  All construction crews for example........pee test.

 

Let's not just single out one group, test everyone. 

 

So yes, I am saying it's punishment to single out one group and not others.

Boy. The testing companies must luv yoo.

[Celliach]

I don't think we should test anyone.  I'm just saying if you're going to test someone for collecting state money, test everyone getting the money.

 

Have you read this thread at all?  I've spent 5 pages arguing against drug testing.

[ozzrokk]

Boy. The testing companies must luv yoo.

 

 

No Sheet..... It's probably what prompted the whole thing in the first place..... Somebodies brother owns a company or something......

[Celliach]

I've been so adamantly against drug testing that I have refused them during job interviews.  I wouldn't work for people that required them.

[GregS]

Btw, ... there is a possible argument for the legality of "suspicion based testing".  And here we go with a whole nother result of the drug war..." Reasonable Suspicion" vs "probable cause".

 

I would say, there must be probable cause to test(even if legal), whereas this whole concept of "reasonable suspicion" being enough for the government to make me give them my bodily fluids is total BS.

Reasonable suspicion was established in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

 

You will find that it was intended to protect police officers from physical harm. There is none of that going on here. You are right. Probable cause must be the standard. But hey. I'm the guy that thinks that Terry should never have happened in the first place.

[Celliach]

Another problem with this bill, whether the recipient passes the test or not, they HAVE to pay for it.  Is it fair to charge a poor person for test that you are forcing them to take?

[northerngal]

I'm trying to point out that you think it is alright to limit people's behavior and punish them for using an illegal drug, all the while that you are using a drug that is considered illegal in the majority of the country.

I will reiterate, that IF this includes the medical use of marijuana, I do not agree.   I have previously stated many times that I do not support the current classification of marijuana.   I will again state I do not consider it a punishment, but a preequisite.  Most programs and even our mmj law have preequisites that are clearly defined.   I know what chances I am taking for being a mmj patient, the "risks" outweigh the benefits in my situation.  I am clearly aware that it is federally illegal.  (aren't we all)

 

Did you use MMJ before the MMMA was passed?  If so, then you were doing the exact same thing that you agree these people should be punished for.  What drug it is doesn't matter.  Are you saying that nobody has ever abused marijuana?  I can tell you right nowm that I did while I was a teenager, and a lot of people if they're honest, will say the same.

No, I was not a regular user of mmj before this law, though I can not deny ever using it.  I actually had a specialist bring up the subject about 15 years back while going through another round of chemo.  My health conditions/disease did not develop after the law, they go back to childhood.   Drug testing has been mandatory in the lines of work I chose as well. 

 

 

I believe I will leave the masturbation subject to you.  If it is causing self destruction, I suggest you seek help.  If you are spending your $400 of state provided money to buy lube, I suggest you get a new hobby or get off the program.  If any behavior is ruining your life and causing you to self destruct, I would make the same suggestion of seeking help.  You do read that I wrote SUGGEST not REQUIRE.   

 

 

It boils down to......If a person does not meet the preequisites for a program, do not apply for the program or conform.  No person is entitled to F.I.P, its not even comparable to things like Disability or Social Security.  (these are programs you pay into - not receive as a "gratuity" due to the inability to support your family)

[GregS]

I don't think we should test anyone.  I'm just saying if you're going to test someone for collecting state money, test everyone getting the money.

 

Have you read this thread at all?  I've spent 5 pages arguing against drug testing.

We get it Celli.

[northerngal]

Why don't we just urine test EVERYONE getting state money.  I'll agree to that.  I don't think we should single out one segment of the population to put under this restriction while ignoring others.

 

Pee test everyone that draws a paycheck form the state.  

 

All politicians getting paid with public funds.....pee test.

 

All cops and firemen and city street workers and sanitation engineers......pee test.

 

Dog catcher, mine inspector, receptionist at city hall, prison guard, and all clerks and secretaries.....pee test.

 

Anybody that works at the highway department, or the health department, all employees of the DNR and the DMV.......pee test.

 

That would include anyone working for a contractor collecting state money too.  All construction crews for example........pee test.

 

Let's not just single out one group, test everyone. 

 

So yes, I am saying it's punishment to single out one group and not others.

 

These people EARN there paycheck.  They work for the money they receive.  Beyond that, many of the positions you list above DO require drug screening as part of the employment process, most even require fingerprinting     I would certainly agree that any of the above positions that do not require preemployment testing should start requiring it.  (a good majority of those already do.)  Oh the injustices!

[GregS]

"I believe I will leave the masturbation subject to you.  If it is causing self destruction, I suggest you seek help.  If you are spending your $400 of state provided money to buy lube, I suggest you get a new hobby or get off the program.  If any behavior is ruining your life and causing you to self destruct, I would make the same suggestion of seeking help.  You do read that I wrote SUGGEST not REQUIRE."

 

That is soo cold. But incredibly funny. 

[Celliach]

I will reiterate, that IF this includes the medical use of marijuana, I do not agree.   I have previously stated many times that I do not support the current classification of marijuana.   I will again state I do not consider it a punishment, but a preequisite.  Most programs and even our mmj law have preequisites that are clearly defined.   I know what chances I am taking for being a mmj patient, the "risks" outweigh the benefits in my situation.  I am clearly aware that it is federally illegal.  (aren't we all)

I understand that position, what I'm asking you and have been, is why your illegal drug is OK, but their's is not OK?  You're making a judgement based on your perceptions and your morals.  That's why I brought up masturbation. To point out how ridiculous it is to punish someone for something you think is "bad."  You and I both have different opinions about what drugs are bad.  Who's right and who has the right to impose their 

 

BTW, what other programs have the prerequisite that you surrender your bodily fluids? 

 

 

I believe I will leave the masturbation subject to you.  If it is causing self destruction, I suggest you seek help.  If you are spending your $400 of state provided money to buy lube, I suggest you get a new hobby or get off the program.  If any behavior is ruining your life and causing you to self destruct, I would make the same suggestion of seeking help.  You do read that I wrote SUGGEST not REQUIRE.   

 

I'm glad you got a laugh out of the masturbation subject.  It served it's intended purpose to point out the absurdity of imposing your ideas of morality and lightened the subject.  I have never had a problem with being the brunt of jokes, I'm often very self-deprecating just to get a laugh.

[GregS]

"I believe I will leave the masturbation subject to you.  If it is causing self destruction, I suggest you seek help.  If you are spending your $400 of state provided money to buy lube, I suggest you get a new hobby or get off the program.  If any behavior is ruining your life and causing you to self destruct, I would make the same suggestion of seeking help.  You do read that I wrote SUGGEST not REQUIRE."

 

That is soo cold. But incredibly funny. 

Yeah. To require that he do that would be wrong.

[northerngal]

Another problem with this bill, whether the recipient passes the test or not, they HAVE to pay for it.  Is it fair to charge a poor person for test that you are forcing them to take?

 

I would like to see where in the bill you read this.  Perhaps you didn't interpet something right or I am misinformed.   As far as I understood, only those failing the test that continue on the program, get charged.  Even in this example they don't actually pay for it out of pocket, it is taken out of their first F.I.P payment. 

 

In otherwords, a person does not get kicked out of the program for failing the test.  They get offered substance abuse treatment and if they comply with treatment, they still receive the benefits. 

 

Please read the bill again. 

[GregS]

Yeah. To require that he do that would be wrong.

Unless you have probable cause.

Edited May 8, 2013 by GregS

[Celliach]

We get it Celli.

 

 

Boy. The testing companies must luv yoo.

 

Apparently you didn't.

[Celliach]

Sorry, I have to go.  A friend just called to tell me his teen-aged daughter was just found near death in a motel room.