Newt Gingrich talks about inventive new ways to punish drug users

SmarterThanYou said:
sorry. I can't get on board with letting government regulate and tax a weed. something about that just strikes me as wholly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. They wouldn't be able to enforce it very well. It's to easy to produce. The best thing about legalization and control would the fact that people would no longer be criminals for smoking a weed. That's the really stupid part.
 
What sucks is our hq is in Cali where its illegal. And I'm a fucking bean counter not a safety sensitive at all. I risk paper cuts and falling asleep of boredom. I blame the racist Prohibitionist.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I really cannot see how any company has the right to do drugs testing, surely your precious constitution has someone to say about that?
Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't prevent the citizens from ensuring their own safety. Almost every business drug tests employees. Can you imagine working on a construction job and the guy operating the crane carrying stuff over you is high on some shit like Meth or strung out and needing a fix.

When you get on an airplane, do you want the pilots drunk or sober?
 
Alias said:
When you think mocking is the right thing to do when ideas are presented, then you can understand why your side is losing more ground every day. The fact that you and the writer who resort to mocking are probably also believers in global warming and mock anyone who doesn't believe in your proven hoax. You and the writer spend your entire lives mocking others and then go merrily on your way while others work on ideas and solutions. We have enough mockers and idlers in this administration spending lavish amounts of money on themselves while doing nothing but digging a deeper whole for this nation and all you and people like this writer can do is mock people trying to help fix things that those you support perpetuated. Asswipes.
Click to expand...

(Excerpt from Msg 1) I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through [drug] testing before you got any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it. (End)

Yes, mocking is most appropriate when hearing Repub ideas presented because they're always the same idea; cut programs to the poor. Losing Federal Aid would not be a disincentive for the wealthy. They wouldn't lose anything. How about if testing positive for drug use results in being fined the equivalent of the previous year's capital gains or investment income?

Repub ideas invariably involve, one way or another, depriving the poor. Cut medical. Cut welfare. Cut school lunches. Cut education.

What about cutting the military? What about raising taxes on capital gains and investment income? How about a surtax on homes worth over $1 million similar to some countries having a surtax on luxury vehicles?

As Obama said when addressing the medical crisis, "Don't come with tired, worn out ideas", but the Repubs did resulting in them being excused from the discussions.

Repub ideas are nothing but a variation on the same old theme; make the poor suffer. Repub ideas are like the passing off of subprime mortgages; repackage garbage and try to sell it.

In this case mocking is a most appropriate response.
 
Alias said:
The constitution doesn't prevent the citizens from ensuring their own safety. Almost every business drug tests employees. Can you imagine working on a construction job and the guy operating the crane carrying stuff over you is high on some shit like Meth or strung out and needing a fix.

When you get on an airplane, do you want the pilots drunk or sober?
Click to expand...

There is a world of difference between conducting tests based on observed behaviour and tests that are just random. I can't think of any company in the UK that conducts random tests on its employees.
 
apple0154 said:
(Excerpt from Msg 1) I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through [drug] testing before you got any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it. (End)

Yes, mocking is most appropriate when hearing Repub ideas presented because they're always the same idea; cut programs to the poor. Losing Federal Aid would not be a disincentive for the wealthy. They wouldn't lose anything. How about if testing positive for drug use results in being fined the equivalent of the previous year's capital gains or investment income?

Repub ideas invariably involve, one way or another, depriving the poor. Cut medical. Cut welfare. Cut school lunches. Cut education.

What about cutting the military? What about raising taxes on capital gains and investment income? How about a surtax on homes worth over $1 million similar to some countries having a surtax on luxury vehicles?

As Obama said when addressing the medical crisis, "Don't come with tired, worn out ideas", but the Repubs did resulting in them being excused from the discussions.

Repub ideas are nothing but a variation on the same old theme; make the poor suffer. Repub ideas are like the passing off of subprime mortgages; repackage garbage and try to sell it.

In this case mocking is a most appropriate response.
Click to expand...

I worked in the welfare office. Now you tell me why I should subsidize people's food who have enough to spend on tats, beer, wine, cigs, and drugs. I'm all ears, go for it.
 
The Dude said:
What sucks is our hq is in Cali where its illegal. And I'm a fucking bean counter not a safety sensitive at all. I risk paper cuts and falling asleep of boredom. I blame the racist Prohibitionist.
Click to expand...

You might just fuck up and order too many paper clips, you could cause the whole company to go down the toilet.
 
Alias said:
If someone wants to use drugs then pay for it out of your own earnings. Providing food stamps or welfare to people who have money for cigarettes, beer, wine, drugs, etc, is insane.
Click to expand...

Please tell me which corner drug dealer takes food stamps as a form of payment. Or a state that allows such items to be bought with them.
 
Alias said:
I worked in the welfare office. Now you tell me why I should subsidize people's food who have enough to spend on tats, beer, wine, cigs, and drugs. I'm all ears, go for it.
Click to expand...

And just how much beer and drugs and wine and cigarettes did you see? Were they smoking tailor-mades or rolling the cheapest, no-name tobacco available? I'm sure their version of a Grand Cru Burgundy was a bottle of Ripple. I doubt their combined total expenses would cover rent and food and clothes, basic necessities of life. I've seen welfare drinkers. They'll "nurse" a bottle of beer for over an hour.

The point is by the time someone hits welfare they've gone through doing without long before the first check arrives. They have lost everything; job, home and, in most cases, family and any support system they had. The government waits until the person is broken before helping. The help it too little, too late. They've been robbed of initiative and drive. They're like a beaten animal and that's all due to some people thinking if they help too soon others will become lazy. If help and support were offered in the beginning, before they hit skid row and accepted/slid into that lifestyle, things would be a lot different.

It's argued the government causes people to depend on them and they're right but it's not because of the help. It's because the help came too late. By the time the average person qualifies for help they've fallen so far they can't see a way out. To say they're clinically depressed would be an understatement not to mention mal-nourished and that's the crime in today's society and the Repub solution is to throw more people into that position. That's the Republican's old, tired, worn-out, failed solution.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I really cannot see how any company has the right to do drugs testing, surely your precious constitution has someone to say about that?
Click to expand...

The company is private property, they have the right to test for drugs. Shoot even the government tests for drugs.
 
Damocles said:
The company is private property, they have the right to test for drugs. Shoot even the government tests for drugs.
Click to expand...


Actually, the government can only drug test where it has a compelling for doing so. And in some states, private employers are also restricted.

Edit: Just to clarify, the government can test applicants, but has much stricter rules for employees.
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
Actually, the government can only drug test where it has a compelling for doing so. And in some states, private employers are also restricted.

Edit: Just to clarify, the government can test applicants, but has much stricter rules for employees.
Click to expand...

I would think not having stoned employees doing work would be compelling reason enough......

(on second thought, if I ever get audited by the IRS I wouldn't mind if my auditor was high).....
 
Damocles said:
The company is private property, they have the right to test for drugs. Shoot even the government tests for drugs.
Click to expand...

That's the thin end of the wedge in my opinion. What next, background checks on lifestyle, religion, politics, morality? I can see it making sense for jobs like airline pilot etc. where other lives are at risk but this amounts to invasion of privacy. For a country that is so strong on the rights of the individual, this seems more like the actions of a police state.

http://www.helium.com/items/664553-is-drug-testing-an-invasion-of-privacy

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform_technology-and-liberty/privacy-america-workplace-drug-testing
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
That's the thin end of the wedge in my opinion. What next, background checks on lifestyle, religion, politics, morality? I can see it making sense for jobs like airline pilot etc. where other lives are at risk but this amounts to invasion of privacy. For a country that is so strong on the rights of the individual, this seems more like the actions of a police state.

http://www.helium.com/items/664553-is-drug-testing-an-invasion-of-privacy

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform_technology-and-liberty/privacy-america-workplace-drug-testing
Click to expand...
why is it that people seem fine and dandy with the government doing all these things but get all irate the minute a private company does the same?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top