Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You guys do understand that this law applies to the tiny fraction of recipients who get CASH payments.

This is not just all welfare, it's only the very poorest of the poor at the very bottom of the welfare system.

So yes, it's completely reasonable that some of them might not have 35$. These are not the average welfare recipient, these are the very poorest of the welfare recipients.

The results of this poll do not surprise me.

Remember, representative government is designed to protect the minority form the power of the majority.

This is pretty obviosuly a violation of the Bill of Rights provision against unlawful searchs.

Easy E wrote:
This is pretty obviosuly a violation of the Bill of Rights provision against unlawful searchs.

Not to pick on you, but I think you'll find that the term "obviously" rarely shows up in legal arguments.

There is interesting precedent on both sides of the issue.

Polonius wrote:Not to pick on you, but I think you'll find that the term "obviously" rarely shows up in legal arguments.

Maybe not yours.

Then again, you don't have to deal with 35 U.S.C. § 103.
( )

Its RAW vs. RAI for real!

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Not to pick on you, but I think you'll find that the term "obviously" rarely shows up in legal arguments.

Maybe not yours.

Then again, you don't have to deal with 35 U.S.C. § 103.
( )

Well, obliviously.

Lol, yeah, there is an "obvious error" provision in one of the SSA regs as well.

Polonius wrote:Lol, yeah, there is an "obvious error" provision in one of the SSA regs as well.

How on earth would you prove 'obviousness'.

CptJake wrote:Punishment is NOT rehabilitation, nor should it be. A crime can (should) be punished. That is a separate issue to rehabilitating the person. Two different processes, sometimes they do occur at the same time, but still different.

That's exactly the thinking I'm pointing out is so problematic. You've simply asserted that crime should be punished, without even thinking about any reason why that ought to be so.

Absolutely, 100% totally and without argument, the reason to punish a crime is to stop a person doing it again. Anything else is madness. At which point we are left to ask 'what is the best way to stop a person committing that crime?'

In some cases, the best way to stop them committing that crime is to help them, at which point the idea that we should punish them at all becomes a nonsense. If a person is tested and found to be a drug addict, do you think the most likely way to help them become a functioning, healthy member of society is to give them a year in jail, or to help them with a drugs program?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The argument that only 32 people out of 7000 failed the drug test is not indicative of the number of welfare applicants on drugs. It's only indicative of the number of people who took the test and failed. It's possible that a number of those who refused the test (or didn't apply knowing that the test was required) were also drug users.

It isn't only possible that a number were drug users, it's almost certain that a greater percentage were drug users than among the population (because there is an incentive towards refusing the test if you know you'll fail). The issue is we have no idea what percentage increase might be.

You rightly pointed out that we can't presume that the percentage of people who decline who would have failed was the same as the general population, but you then proceeded to make the ludicrous assumption that the correct percentage was 100%.

In fact, I'm going to flatly state that I find the assumption that only 0.5% of welfare applicants are drug users to be completely absurd. Especially given that national marijuana use (monthly) is around 5%. (possibly biased site, but it's only used to show that the 0.5% result is absurd, which I think is pretty evident).

And if the population of regular marijuana users is as high as 5%, and it may well be, then we're looking at a drug which obviously doesn't prevent users from otherwise holding down a steady job. At which point I have to wonder why bother testing for it, if it isn't the cause of the person's welfare dependancy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:It iis also possible (I would submit likely) that some of the 7000 that passed are drug users, and either 'beat' the test or stayed clean long enough to take it.

If some folk can beat it, and we're just going to assume folk who pass are just drug users who beat the test, then what's the fething point in testing them at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:Do you think our society has reached a point to which after all the annecdotal and narrow sampling sizes of data with what we regard as social ills and vices that they see no recourse for those who break the law other than jail? I mean, just look at sex offenders in America. Not on iota of remorse for them and they're hounded by the law and community until they're driven out of society.

I think you've got cultural hang ups and institutional biases that lead to jail being considered the default solution to many problems. I mean, you lock up a greater percentage of your population than anyone else, and I'm not really sure you get anything for it, other than a big taxpayer bill going to private jails every month.

I think the sex offender thing is a bit different, and just part of the great predator moral panic that's common throughout the world right now.

when you are poor as dirt a good buzz is worth more than anything. Once we realize the poor aren't the ones destroying the world we will be in a better place, mark my words.

Do any of you have kids? How do you know that there is really something that needs attention? They start talking an awful lot about something else? Yea, in reality politicians are children that never were allowed to grow by their parents. They all wear Sponge Bob undies I swear to god

sebster wrote:

CptJake wrote:Punishment is NOT rehabilitation, nor should it be. A crime can (should) be punished. That is a separate issue to rehabilitating the person. Two different processes, sometimes they do occur at the same time, but still different.

That's exactly the thinking I'm pointing out is so problematic. You've simply asserted that crime should be punished, without even thinking about any reason why that ought to be so.

Absolutely, 100% totally and without argument, the reason to punish a crime is to stop a person doing it again. Anything else is madness. At which point we are left to ask 'what is the best way to stop a person committing that crime?'

I will argue that. According to the wiki entry on punishment:

Fundamental justifications for punishment include: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitations such as isolation in order to prevent the wrongdoer's having contact with potential victims.[7] Of the four justifications, only retribution is part of the definition of punishment and none of the other justifications are guaranteed outcomes.[4]

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

Sometimes retribution and deterence are the reasons to punish a crime. Note that deterence does NOT always refer to detering the individual who committed the crime, sometimes you want to deter others. Retribution is an important part of justice, which is why you have the old saws about 'paying for your crime'. Call it madness, but it is true.