Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
davidthegnome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:24 PM
Original message
Mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients?
I was recently checking out face-book where a number of people I like and respect are applauding this. They are suggesting that because some of us have jobs that require drug testing, all of those who "don't work" and receive government assistance should have to pass drug tests to maintain their benefits. Clearly unconstitutional, clearly an invasion of privacy. Now as government assistance comes under such heavy scrutiny, people who have smoked a little marijuana will lose their benefits as a result? Doesn't strike me as fair, let alone legal.

In fact, a lot of the people supporting this new law in Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri have at one time or another needed assistance themselves, or have actually smoked a little pot at one time or another. Most of them do not have jobs requiring drug testing.

Why do otherwise intelligent people support this attempt to demonize the poor? Does being poor take away our right to privacy? Does requiring government assistance mean that we should come under heavier suspicion of being criminals or drug addicts than anyone else?

I just don't get it. People who I know are capable of compassion, empathy, people I respect seem to think this is such a great thing. What the hell is wrong with this Country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. there is no such law in kentucky..
Edited on Fri Nov-18-11 02:29 PM by iamthebandfanman
it was brought up and then tabled in the house the last time i checked.... like most things right wingers spew, you have to check for LIES.

also, if politicians got drug tested too then this wouldnt be such a bad thing ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidthegnome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Ah, thanks for the clarification
The sad thing is though - that the people I know posting this stuff aren't right wingers. They're Obama voters, they're even card carrying democrats. That's what really infuriates me. These people ought to know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. yeah, ive had people
with no visible political affliation report it alot too..

just do like i do and point out the lies within :P



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. It flopped in Florida
The only reason it existed was to line the pockets of one of Scott's crony no-bid privatized piss processors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RockaFowler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. I was thinking the same thing
I saw the same post and I was nearly boiling over

Oh and it's not working the way they wanted it to here in Florida. 98% of the people who have taken the test have passed. So now the state has to reimburse the cost to those people that took the test. FAIL!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. 96% passed, 2% failed, 2% declined to test
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. TEST WALL STREET PEOPLE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow2u3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. DRUG TEST WALL STREET: great idea for an OWS sign
Also good bumper sticker material.

BTW, we should also drug test lobbyists, non-Wall Street corporate head honchos (hello, Kochroaches), oil barons, right-wing talking heads, and Republican politicians.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. they make decisions that affecf all of us
if anyone should be TESTED it should be THEM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocracyInaction Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
7. Up here in America's armpit.....
...we done is a little slow. Our beloved Maine goubenor (the little fat Tea Party turd) wants that to be done in the next legislative session. He's banking on the fact that the people up here don't get none of that outside news. Wellll, unfortunately, most of the state is on welfare so I don't think it will fly far. In fact, it's the backwoods little communities that live on welfare who are the ones who voted for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarLeftFist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
9. It would cost the states millions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. Any state, or the federal, legislature that passes such a law should also
include all legislators at the local, state, and federal level. They too are receiving tax payers dollars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. Corporate welfare recipients included?
:evilgrin:
rocktivity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
13. Some public housing is thinking of banning smoking. That isn't fair
to poor smokers. (Remember,nicotine is a drug also)

I have no problem with drug testing---several of my kids have jobs where it is done on a regular basis,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Genealogist Donating Member (495 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
14. This is plain old "othering" of the poor
The RW loves to manufacture scapegoats and drive them over metaphorical cliffs. Poor welfare recipients have been a favorite scapegoat at LEAST since Reagan manufactured his "welfare queen" meme decades ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Actually, it is #3 of the 14 points of fascism.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

the whole list...how many can you recognize as being in force here, now?

14 POINTS OF FASCISM


1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
16. i called people out on facebook for voting yes in that poll..
asked flat out if it was out of spite, and posted a link to an article showing how states are losing more money than they hope to save by drug testing welfare recipients. i too was surprised by people who are "self-described liberals" in my friends list who voted in the affirmative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
18. Nobody I respect thinks that.
Cause as soon as they own up to it, I lose all respect for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
19. Amazingly, half of DU seems to think it's just peachy keen
judging by the previous 8,000 or so threads on this topic. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC