• Welfare Drug Test Law Ruled Unconstitutional
    103 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33015312]So you shouldn't be allowed to look at an applicant with a false eye because, holy shit, it will reveal they have a false eye? Are you [I]trying[/I] to be dense? Seriously, you're normally so reasonable and here you've presented not a god damn piece of rationality for anything. You just keep parroting that businesses shouldn't be allowed to know. Tell me [I]why.[/I][/QUOTE] I already posted a document that explains why [url]http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/poldrgalceng.pdf[/url] The Canadian Human Rights Commission didn't just give legal reasons that apply to us but moral ones that would easily apply to the United States as well At the very least skim through it
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33014428] That isn't a concession at all[/QUOTE] Basically this is how Im seeing it: Option one: Give them the money, no questions asked. Also fund free rehab services +Could go towards helping the person get a roof over their head and get food +Less bureaucracy, cheaper in that you don't have to administer drug tests -Could also go towards letting them buy more drugs, worsening their situation -They [I]might[/I] go to rehab on their own, but on the other hand the influence of drugs is also pretty strong Option two: Make free rehab available, administer tests for hard drugs, give people on hard drugs money for going to rehab +Gives people money for housing and food while hopefully getting them out of addiction +Less easily abused than option one -Added cost in administering drug tests -Conceding to some form of drug test I really dont see why option one is better
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33015312]So you shouldn't be allowed to look at an applicant with a false eye because, holy shit, it will reveal they have a false eye? Are you [I]trying[/I] to be dense? Seriously, you're normally so reasonable and here you've presented not a god damn piece of rationality for anything. You just keep parroting that businesses shouldn't be allowed to know. Tell me [I]why.[/I] If your morals are so mutable that you're one religion or political party today and another tomorrow I think most folk would tell you you're really none of them. Those things change, but they're not normally things one changes on a whim.[/QUOTE] Uhh a large portion of the population of nearly every country has 'mutable morals'. Where do you think the flip votes come from in elections? I'd argue someone who doesn't blindly follow one side or another, but chooses appropriate action based on the current scenario is much better than some idiot with 'immutable' morals.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;33015354]Basically this is how Im seeing it: Option one: Give them the money, no questions asked. Also fund free rehab services +Could go towards helping the person get a roof over their head and get food +Less bureaucracy, cheaper in that you don't have to administer drug tests -Could also go towards letting them buy more drugs, worsening their situation -They [I]might[/I] go to rehab on their own, but on the other hand the influence of drugs is also pretty strong Option two: Make free rehab available, administer tests for hard drugs, give people on hard drugs money for going to rehab +Gives people money for housing and food while hopefully getting them out of addiction +Less easily abused than option one -Added cost in administering drug tests -Conceding to some form of drug test I really dont see why option one is better[/QUOTE] First option shows compassion for your fellow man, so that's an extra + for the list First option wins
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33015396]First option shows compassion for your fellow man, so that's an extra + for the list First option wins[/QUOTE] Why doesnt the second option give compassion for you fellow man? Hell I'd say giving someone in need money to help them survive [B]and[/B] help to get over their addiction is more compassionate then just giving them money.
Drug testing is terribly dumb. Can we at least legalize cannabis? It's what's best for the country and her inhabitants.
Besides, drug testing is either prohibitively expensive or easily circumvented.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33015339]I already posted a document that explains why [url]http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/poldrgalceng.pdf[/url] The Canadian Human Rights Commission didn't just give legal reasons that apply to us but moral ones that would easily apply to the United States as well At the very least skim through it[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Workplace rules and standards that have no demonstrable relationship to job safety and performance have been found to be in violation of an employee’s human rights.[/QUOTE] What, there was a scientific study? Where are we getting this end-all be all enumerator of human rights, the UDHR? This is gibberish. And, more notably, intentionally naive. [QUOTE]In the Commission's view, drug testing is generally not acceptable, because it does not assess the effect of drug use on performance.[/QUOTE] I have to repeat myself: You don't think if a person is willing to break the law for personal satisfaction it doesn't tell you a bit about their character?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33015396]First option shows compassion for your fellow man, so that's an extra + for the list First option wins[/QUOTE] What? That's ridiculous. The second option shows more compassion. At least with that option you are trying to help the person improve his situation, the first option only fuels the drug addiction because let's face it, someone with a serious addiction is not going to spend his money on the things that actually matter. The first option is cold and distant, and seems to give money for the sake of appearances. The second option seeks to give those with serious drug problems the help they really need, and makes sure they receive that help.
Damn I actually supported the drug testing, I don't think it was out of question or reasonable doubt
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33015986]What, there was a scientific study?[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about? Read what Zeke posted again. It's saying that in order for an employer to drug test their employees, there must be a clear demonstrable relationship to job safe and performance. [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] One example being: driving trucks.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;33015444]Why doesnt the second option give compassion for you fellow man? Hell I'd say giving someone in need money to help them survive [B]and[/B] help to get over their addiction is more compassionate then just giving them money.[/QUOTE] Just because someone tests positive for hard drugs does not mean that they are addicted. Also what would you use as a definition for hard drugs?
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;33020390]Just because someone tests positive for hard drugs does not mean that they are addicted. Also what would you use as a definition for hard drugs?[/QUOTE] [quote]Psychoactive drugs that are addictive and are perceived as especially damaging[/quote] Edit: Weed being a soft drug and Heroin being a hard drug, for example.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33015986]What, there was a scientific study? Where are we getting this end-all be all enumerator of human rights, the UDHR? This is gibberish. And, more notably, intentionally naive.[/QUOTE] The Human Rights Commission decides what human rights are based on court precedent, the Charter, and existing laws [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33016137]What? That's ridiculous. The second option shows more compassion. At least with that option you are trying to help the person improve his situation, the first option only fuels the drug addiction because let's face it, someone with a serious addiction is not going to spend his money on the things that actually matter. The first option is cold and distant, and seems to give money for the sake of appearances. The second option seeks to give those with serious drug problems the help they really need, and makes sure they receive that help.[/QUOTE] The first option allows the person to do with their life as they see fit, the second option forces them into help like they're a deviant child, or else lets them go homeless and without any money
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.