Was it even the cover? I thought it was just a point on the side, and that the issue at hand was "hey, we don't think welfare recipients should be spending money on drugs".
Only 12 in Utah out of 4730
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Was it even the cover? I thought it was just a point on the side, and that the issue at hand was "hey, we don't think welfare recipients should be spending money on drugs".
Bordelais beat me to it and had a better answer.
It's just really weird that anyone is making such a big stink and wasting taxpayer money about an issue that affects <0.025 of the targetted group AND has the added benefit of being insulting and prejudiced.
But sure, you can make that argument.
I think that is a crock.
As for the amount of waste. It does appear this is a drop in the ocean. I think it has more to do with it being allowed for employment. Sour apples
Edit: I can see and give you the insulting part.
I think it being allowed for employment is also bull **** but I also believe in the right of organizations to do as they see fit within reason. Drug testing is a superficial measure that only tests for marijuana with any kind of practical efficacy while it's arguably the least harmful drug ( when compared to substances of varying legality like alcohol, tobacco, opiates, and benzodiazipines). If a welfare recipient has a taste for just about any other drug - especially alcohol, coca, or amphetamines - then they can just use those within one day of a test and be fine so long as they aren't abjectly vegetative with their lifestyle and/or don't drink water.
It's all rather silly.
It's all rather silly.
As opposed to anyone else who spends money, or money from the government more specifically? I don't recall any proposals to drug test private prisons officials or state legislators. You are replacing one cover with another cover.
To be clear, I'm simply re-stating the arguments that I've actually heard. Whether it's a "cover" or not, I'm not debating. Just saying that I don't believe that "financial savings" was a major component of any of the arguments.
But I see where this is going...these arguments are all just "covers" for underlying racism, correct? Please just say that I'm correct, and let's get it over with.
I think you would see the same rhetoric even if most of the poor were of the same race. Historically, for example, you could have seen similar notions about charity for the Irish. In fact, many of the drawings of 100+ years ago would depict the Irish with features resembling those of apes.
So, I would say "classism" is a better choice. Any group on the bottom financially gets kicked.