Drug testing for welfare, plus pointless stuff
I actually had a pretty decent post written, when I somehow managed to erase the whole thing as it was autosaving a blank screen. Awesome.
In other news, yesterday I failed at the internet when I knowingly and willfully disagreed with a popular opinion whilst perusing The Book of Faces, leading to what could've been an interesting discussion, if anyone was interested in actual facts (and not just knee jerk reactions). The topic? Florida's recent executive order to do drug tests on welfare recipients. The post:
Florida is the first state that will require drug testing when applying for welfare (effective July 1st)! Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional yet it's okay that every working person had to pass a drug test in order to support those on welfare? Re-post if you… agree!!! Let's get Welfare back to the one's who NEED it, not those that just WANT it
*sigh*
First thing? It doesn't work.
Second thing: companies are private enterprise, and are allowed to have specific conditions on which they base hiring considerations - whereas social assistance programs are governmental programs, which requires (at least, in theory) probable cause to require testing. Requiring assistance in and of itself does not constitute probable cause.
Third thing, as articulated by Boogery Brudder: "You guys? You receive no benefits from the State beyond the (theoretical) benefits of citizenship itself, so you can do these drugs. Except doing them or even possessing them, well, that's illegal, so you can't. But you guys? Yeah, you guys receive additional benefits from the State so you guys can't do these drugs. Except you can't already because they're already illegal. We'll just consider them extra illegal for you... OK, wait... No, everyone who receives benefits from the State must be drug free because it's not fair for taxes to support drug use especially since we spend so much tax revenue in a futile attempt to fight drugs so... Umm... OK, every citizen benefits from police and military protection, so every citizen must submit to drug testing, and if you fail your drug test, then you lose your police protection, and... Wait... Err... OK, this is fucked..."
Fourth thing: Beyond all of THAT: any case worker should be able to tell if a recipient is abusing the system. Funds would be better spent increasing workers in the agencies responsible, increasing their training and education, and reducing their case loads. An overworked social care employee does no one any good, and is a major drain on the system in and of itself. But increasing in those areas requires funding - reducing strain on the welfare system requires an increase in funding to other sectors and real solutions instead of knee-jerk, high-publicity actions. All of which comes from increasing funding - and therefore taxes, which is why no one wants to talk about those options, but prefer to bandy about a faulty solution that is less expensive and significantly less effective.
So there was that.
I really liked, though, how when I said that I have a fundamental problem with the proposal on a number of fronts, I was immediately asked:
1) what I smoked today
2) how long I've been on assistance
3) why my head is so far up my ass
4) why I think only the working and upper classes should be subject to accountability (which: WHAT? I'm pretty sure a hard-working broker, banker, or lawyer has no problem taking drugs, so the actual question should be why are they more exempt?)
I love America. It is a constant source of amusement.
---------------------------------
In other news: My hair has gotten pretty damned long. And not just in the "Pave feels like her hair is long, but really, it's still pretty short" kind of way - in the actual "holy shit, your hair got LONG" kinda way. It's currently about an inch and a half past my collarbone.
And I am currently sick to death of it, but I will say this: it's way cheaper to maintain this way.
---------------------------------
In other, other news: I think this rude broad got exactly what she deserved when she refused to stop texting in the cinema - despite being asked repeatedly to cease and desist. Though her diatribe is pretty fucking amusing, all things considered. "Memerica." Heh.
---------------------------------
I am kicking around trying to actually write the book everyone keeps telling me to. 'Cos why not?
I have a rough outline, and will rough it in. I suspect it will take the form of anecdotes and stories, linked by a loose narrative, but who knows. I've never embarked on anything like this. We'll see what happens. I have someone who's offered to edit, should I go through with it.
Having said that: it's not as though I think this will get published or anything - I know my writing is way too erratic for anyone to actually deal with it.
In other news, yesterday I failed at the internet when I knowingly and willfully disagreed with a popular opinion whilst perusing The Book of Faces, leading to what could've been an interesting discussion, if anyone was interested in actual facts (and not just knee jerk reactions). The topic? Florida's recent executive order to do drug tests on welfare recipients. The post:
Florida is the first state that will require drug testing when applying for welfare (effective July 1st)! Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional yet it's okay that every working person had to pass a drug test in order to support those on welfare? Re-post if you… agree!!! Let's get Welfare back to the one's who NEED it, not those that just WANT it
*sigh*
First thing? It doesn't work.
Second thing: companies are private enterprise, and are allowed to have specific conditions on which they base hiring considerations - whereas social assistance programs are governmental programs, which requires (at least, in theory) probable cause to require testing. Requiring assistance in and of itself does not constitute probable cause.
Third thing, as articulated by Boogery Brudder: "You guys? You receive no benefits from the State beyond the (theoretical) benefits of citizenship itself, so you can do these drugs. Except doing them or even possessing them, well, that's illegal, so you can't. But you guys? Yeah, you guys receive additional benefits from the State so you guys can't do these drugs. Except you can't already because they're already illegal. We'll just consider them extra illegal for you... OK, wait... No, everyone who receives benefits from the State must be drug free because it's not fair for taxes to support drug use especially since we spend so much tax revenue in a futile attempt to fight drugs so... Umm... OK, every citizen benefits from police and military protection, so every citizen must submit to drug testing, and if you fail your drug test, then you lose your police protection, and... Wait... Err... OK, this is fucked..."
Fourth thing: Beyond all of THAT: any case worker should be able to tell if a recipient is abusing the system. Funds would be better spent increasing workers in the agencies responsible, increasing their training and education, and reducing their case loads. An overworked social care employee does no one any good, and is a major drain on the system in and of itself. But increasing in those areas requires funding - reducing strain on the welfare system requires an increase in funding to other sectors and real solutions instead of knee-jerk, high-publicity actions. All of which comes from increasing funding - and therefore taxes, which is why no one wants to talk about those options, but prefer to bandy about a faulty solution that is less expensive and significantly less effective.
So there was that.
I really liked, though, how when I said that I have a fundamental problem with the proposal on a number of fronts, I was immediately asked:
1) what I smoked today
2) how long I've been on assistance
3) why my head is so far up my ass
4) why I think only the working and upper classes should be subject to accountability (which: WHAT? I'm pretty sure a hard-working broker, banker, or lawyer has no problem taking drugs, so the actual question should be why are they more exempt?)
I love America. It is a constant source of amusement.
---------------------------------
In other news: My hair has gotten pretty damned long. And not just in the "Pave feels like her hair is long, but really, it's still pretty short" kind of way - in the actual "holy shit, your hair got LONG" kinda way. It's currently about an inch and a half past my collarbone.
And I am currently sick to death of it, but I will say this: it's way cheaper to maintain this way.
---------------------------------
In other, other news: I think this rude broad got exactly what she deserved when she refused to stop texting in the cinema - despite being asked repeatedly to cease and desist. Though her diatribe is pretty fucking amusing, all things considered. "Memerica." Heh.
---------------------------------
I am kicking around trying to actually write the book everyone keeps telling me to. 'Cos why not?
I have a rough outline, and will rough it in. I suspect it will take the form of anecdotes and stories, linked by a loose narrative, but who knows. I've never embarked on anything like this. We'll see what happens. I have someone who's offered to edit, should I go through with it.
Having said that: it's not as though I think this will get published or anything - I know my writing is way too erratic for anyone to actually deal with it.