Non-Backpacking Forum

“my friend is developing a new site and it has a free-for-all forum. so you can bicker about religion, guns and drugs all you want.

what do you think of this?”

“I am suprised to hear that you have a friend.

D'oh!”

“so am i.

i am extraordinarily unpopular.”

“Don’t help people sit on their rears.


I have a question, not only for Douglas County, but for the entire state of Oregon.Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order for me to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test. Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to go earn it for them?

Please understand, I have nothing against helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt. Could you Imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Leonard Wilson ~ Riddle”

“Is there necessarily a connection between drug use and chronic laziness?

And, can the state check for other things, like propensity to have cancer or heart disease?

After all, it wouldn't do any good to give aid to a person who was going to die of heart disease in ten years, right? It would just be a waste of money. Better to have them all die earlier.”

“Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check

i can dig it.”

“who's going to pay for the urine test?”

“What he's talking about, RL, is the double-standard. He who works to pay for those who don't work have higher standards asked of them than those who aren't working but collecting the employed folks money!

That seems fair to you??

And BTW, this has nothing at all to do with people who are suffereng from a chronic disease, let's try to stay on task here, OK? No one is suggesting we don't help those folks out, that's a different issue altogether.”

“I hadn't thought about that catskhiker. Interesting dilemma.”

“How do you reform someone if you deny them any possible recovery resources because of a positive urine test? What about false positives? What if you were require undergo a detox program to get your check, for whatever you came up positive for, and had to successfully complete it to maintain assistance? How many people do you think are denied jobs because of past substance abuse problems?

Perhaps some people are unreformable, but who gets to decide that? Why? I'm not necessarily disagreeing here, but they're worthy questions to consider...

Not to call out Catshiker personally, but how many of us have experimented with all kinds of substances in, say our college years that we would never commend now? And in most cases, it was probably on either our parents', the school's, or the state's money...”

“This should probably be in the fuego section.

That being said, poor catskhiker is trying to apply ethical decision making and critical thinking to social policy and politics. Good luck! Frederic Bastiat wrote a wonderful book on this called "The Law"...should be required reading in high school civics.
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/thelaw.html

Reducing the welfare rolls of people who can work and should work is not high on the agenda of most politicians.

Good luck!”

“all newbies are trolls until proven otherwise

all trolls are s-rge until proven otherwise

any non-controversial topic can be turned fuego by adding XL and a comment about "feel good libbies" or "the commies under your bed", usually out of the blue

thread degeneration is encouraged, and in some cases, required

parental guidance is suggested”

“It was an interesting thought & I gave credit to the author. I believe it's a plausible idea. Urine tests are very cheap & why not? Why enable drug use unless you are a drug user?”

“in principle, i agree with you, cats. and i dont thing phantom is necessarily disagreeing with you. he is just pointing out the issues/problems that could arise when you go from principle/theory to actual implementation/practice.”

“No test / no money? It just might help clear up a little criminal activity.

Gov workers (among many, many others) HAVE to take a drug test so it stands to reason Gov money recipients should take a drug test.

No discrimation shown. Pee in a bottle or offer up a single hair. Works for me.”

“Well I have to get going now. I live in the Catskills & I'm going hiking.”

“

"After all, it wouldn't do any good to give aid to a person who was going to die of heart disease in ten years, right? It would just be a waste of money. Better to have them all die earlier."
reformed lurker

Thanks. Just send me to the bathroom with my choice of a bottle or a handgun. Pee in the bottle or shoot yourself!

And I thought you were a nice guy!

crash bang - Your "rules for non-backpacking forums" are good for backpacking forums, too.
last edited: 12/28/06 6:51:53 AM”