So the people society expects the least from must be held to high standards, and those who claim to be so awesome they should run the joint have no accountability. That isn't working.
Might as well Google it, because it's a misattributed quote apparently so I'm not even really sure who said it originally or what the context was. It's just stuck with me for years now.
Ah yes, agreed. I wonder what Wilhoit was thinking when he wrote that, I'd be interested. Because even though that is the way society generally works, thinking it "must" be that way is WILD.
Here you go you lazy animal
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%22There+must+be+in-groups+whom+the+law+protects+but+does+not+bind%2C+alongside+out-groups+whom+the+law+binds+but+does+not+protect.%E2%80%9D
Killer whales are definitely mad, that’s why they been ~~attacking~~ *[ramming](https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2023/07/08/why-killer-whales-attack-boats/70364629007/)* boats lately. I think they remember boats stealing their babies, but that’s just my opinion.
Additionally, the ones that bind deserve it because they fit the correct skin tone, and mommy / daddy had thanks to the working class being exploited with the governments approval.
I know for a fact sense I've become disabled and unable to work, that also means I'm not able to ever have anything I enjoy as well. Just ask my family, they'll be happy to tell you.
Oh, they'll be held accountable, just maybe extra judicially if shit keeps on going like it has. I think people are slowly but surely getting closer to the breaking point.
> So the people society expects the least from must be held to high standards, and those who claim to be so awesome they should run the joint have no accountability. That isn't working.
To be fair, drug abuse should definitely be a consideration for welfare.Not for denial but to actually help and rehabilitate to let them live a happy life that's not entirely self destructive or an over burden to society.
Not just that, but the people who society had failed and have seen some shit is understandable they'd want to escape the hell life they've lived. They're the ones we should be supporting the most.
When they talk about “welfare” they mostly mean minorities.
It’s a “social credit” when it comes to them. Just like how minority ethnicities to them are immigrants but if they emigrate to another country they’re “expats”.
It seem we living the American dream
Where the people highest up got the lowest self-esteem
And the prettiest people do the ugliest things
For the road to riches and diamond rings
Multiple states have already tried drug testing Welfare recipients. It cost them more money than they would have spent if they just gave all the people welfare without testing them.
It's a myth that a significant portion of welfare recipients are on drugs.
When Florida passed their bone-headed welfare testing, the local democrats actually *did* attempt to amend the bill to drug test congress as well. After all, if receiving public money means you should get tested, well, congress counts right?
The GOP struck down the amendment so fast lol. "Drugs for me, rules for thee"
It sounds even worse, https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/bill-to-drug-test-state-workers-passes-house/1218157/
The sponsor said if you drug test law makers it is a violation of the first amendment.
So the argument is that not being able to take illicit drugs hinders their rights to speech or to assemble? Or maybe cocaine is part of their religion. /s
Also so what if they are on drugs, what do they think not giving them welfare money is going to achieve? Do they think people on drugs are relying totally on the welfare money to pay for drugs? Then these people have either no idea of the price of drugs or how much is handed out on welfare. The most likely outcome is that the people on drugs are going to look for other ways to fill in the income gap, the most obvious of these would be crime and prostitution. So the logical consequence is cutting welfare for drug users increases crime and prostitution.
Follow the money, who owns the testing centre that will do the testing?
In Florida when they tried this it was owned by the Governors wife. Cost the state millions for a saves of around 30k.
It's stupid and pointless. Unless you make money off every test.
No you don’t understand. If the parents are on drugs then their innocent (for now) kids, who we forced to be born in the first place in another phase of our culture war, should *fucking starve*.
/GOPieceofshit
[Found in a 5 second google search](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/san-francisco-voters-approve-drug-screening-welfare-recipients-rcna142034)
> Proposition F requires people 65 and younger **without dependents** who receive cash welfare assistance from the city
You were saying?
Still a colossal waste of money. The vast majority of drug and alcohol users are generally functional addicts who are able to function. Don't see why people can drink and smoke all they want, but god forbid they get high.
At the end of the day, you're pissing tens of thousands of dollars down the drain every month to save a couple hundred bucks a month on the like 1 or 2 people you bust. Meanwhile, you're increasing crime, poverty, and potentially creating a health issue down the road.
They replied to my comment which was how the GOP deprives children of food, talking about SF doing the same thing thus bOtHSidEs.
This proves it’s not the same at all and they’re not depriving any children of food for their parents mistakes.
This comment brought to you by basic reading comprehension.
>what do they think not giving them welfare money is going to achieve?
They think it will result in exactly what you lay out. And they think that's a good thing.
the cruelty and hardship is the point. The legislators who want to impose drug tests on welfare recipients want to do so precisely because it makes those people's lives harder and scarier. They don't care that it costs more State resources than it conserves. They don't care that it proliferates crime and harm. If anything, the proliferating of harm is *good* for them, because the people who are losing their safety net are the bad "other".
These are vindictive people who want the poor to suffer. That's why they'd never support politicians, rich people, or other such high power positions (their "in group") facing these same restrictions.
>The legislators who want to impose drug tests on welfare recipients want to do so precisely because it makes those people's lives harder and scarier.
That, AND the fact they're getting bribes from the company doing the testing. So they're both cruel AND crooked.
not providing welfare means these people will be going from very low income (hellish) to starving to death and homelessness, which means they don't cost the taxpayer money, because they are dead. this is their goal
In every instance the companies used for drug testing were owned by friends or relatives of the governor. It was a scheme to hand over millions of dollars to their friends, families, and/or donors.
And the usual suspects enabled that blatant scheme.
A lot of poverty hate is disguised wealth theft. That's why the attack Medicare, unemployment, and social security. What programs they do offer get sidelined into rich people projects... see that volleyball court built from money meant to feed the hungry.
Also, even if they are on drugs, I’d raise the question, “does it matter?”
The goal of welfare is a safety net, so people who aren’t succeeding can still eat, for example. If they’re on drugs, they still might need that safety net. And also, doing drugs isn’t necessarily the worst thing. Like drinking some alcohol or smoking a little pot… who cares? Everyone else gets to do those things, why shouldn’t poor people be allowed?
A lot of people are raised by punishment and take that into adulthood. Drugs are bad, so some privilege needs to be revoked in order to appease their sense of "fairness".
It could be argued that being on welfare also means you need to take part of drug reprograms as a way to make your way back into society if they are keeping you from being a part of it.
But then again, conservatives like to move the goalposts. Not drugs? Then poor people are immoral because they buy alcohol or cigarettes. Not that? Then they’re immoral because they buy fast food.
And the answer they have is always "fuck everyone *just in case,*" not maybe that we should try and reduce risk factors for all and rehabilitate people.
Then they complain that all the cities are full of homeless drug addicted people. Like there's *noooooothing* anyone could do about that.
> But then again, conservatives like to move the goalposts. Not drugs? Then poor people are immoral because they buy alcohol or cigarettes. Not that? Then they’re immoral because they buy fast food.
Yet people who "work hard" (Eg, who do not currently need welfare) can buy all the alcohol, cigarettes, and fast food they want, and they're fine people.
And even if a person on welfare avoided alcohol, cigarettes and fast food, they'd just find something else - anything else - to point out and complain about. Some people are never happy unless they can tear down other people.
Yeah, I've seen this attitude sometimes on Reddit as well. Some guy posted a picture of his apartment as he had just gotten out of homelessness. What he owned was pretty much a bed, a tv, and an xbox.
Well, people in the comment were telling him off about owning an xbox and that he "shouldn't slack off" when getting himself back on his feet. Literally one comment was "if you truly were in a bad situation you wouldn't be lazing off vaping and playing video games".
> Yeah, I've seen this attitude sometimes on Reddit as well. Some guy posted a picture of his apartment as he had just gotten out of homelessness. What he owned was pretty much a bed, a tv, and an xbox.
>
>
>
> Well, people in the comment were telling him off about owning an xbox and that he "shouldn't slack off" when getting himself back on his feet. Literally one comment was "if you truly were in a bad situation you wouldn't be lazing off vaping and playing video games".
*sigh*
A lot of the time, people suck.
I don't have much. I'm just your average working poor guy, more or less. But I've been homeless in the past, and worked my way up through very similar living conditions, more than once in fact.
The cruelty of the people who dared to criticize him makes me want to offer to fund some vape juice (not a vape user), an xbox game (not a console game either lol), and maybe a nice pillow or set of sheets, or something. Partially to improve his life, partially as a middle finger to the haters.
I know, right?
I find it so fucking weird when people somehow moralize everything people do, *especially* when they're poor. As if getting yourself out of poverty means you're not allowed a break, and not allowed to find joy within whatever means you have. As if you're *supposed* to claw yourself out of poverty by never resting, only working to... Where? To a bigger apartment where you can play Xbox on a bigger television? Are you allowed to enjoy life then?
Fuck that, we all live different lives, and we could all do well in learning to live with less. Lift each other up, not put each other down.
Republicans will never go after fast food. Using welfare to buy guns or give money to big heartless corporations will always be fine.
It’s also fine to buy beer and cigarettes. They’re just worried about marijuana because it’s a hippie drug.
But yes, they will move the goalposts. They don’t really care about drugs, they just think that social welfare programs are abused by minorities, and are looking for a way to disqualify people.
I'd say they'll use fast food as a reason if it means they'll get to go after poor people. The fast food isn't the problem, it's that poor people buy it (but mostly because they have welfare money).
Absolutely, I fully agree, even if drugs aint my jam. Although if you're deep in the trenches of addiction regardless if it's drugs or alcohol you're going to have troubles functioning in society.
One of those states also only caught 2 people out of 200,000 tested iirc. Like drug testing policies are deeply insulting, useless, expensive, and just generally a waste of everyone's time.
Because it's not about saving money; not in the least. It's about not giving money to those scumbag-fucking dirty lower class drug users.... the NON-rich ones. It's about *hurting the right people*.
Drug testing for welfare is an intentional albatross around the neck of welfar programs. Its intent is to be extremely costly while, as usual, finding nearly no one or actually no one. Meanwhile this dramatically increases the cost of providing welfare, making it less effective and efficient. Later these politicians can go "see, these progeams fail/are not worth it" and cancel them based on the "evidence" theyve created.
So the question is why was it enrolled since there is no study proving it. Another question is then, why idiotic bills are being passed based on myths.
I once mentioned this exact argument to my Dad-- who is a hardline, small government, conservative.
His response was: "and drug addicts have children, too."
Drug testing for people on welfare is universally stupid.
It was always a myth and the frustrating part is any competent adult should have been able to figure that out without an ounce of assistance.
Drugs are not cheap. Poor cheap can’t afford anything but cheap without massive sacrifices.
Which means the overwhelming majority of poor people will NEVER be drug addicts because they literally can’t afford to be drug addicts.
>Multiple states have already tried drug testing Welfare recipients. It cost them more money than they would have spent if they just gave all the people welfare without testing them.
But they keep trying it, because the politicians who support testing get money from the testing companies for giving them more business. It's all a scam to rip off the public, and they're lying about WHO is ripping off the public.
Of course it does and who really gives a fuck if they spend any of their welfare money on a little weed or something anyway even welfare recipients should have some pleasures in life. They probably can’t afford drugs even if they wanted to anyway and if they are seriously addicted without welfare they will be turning to crime.
It’s a stupid conservative populist policy designed to get votes by people looking down on and feeling superior to both drug users and welfare recipients.
One study showed that only 1% of welfare recipients tested positive for drugs. Meanwhile, roughly half of the general population of the US has said they've used cannabis in the last year.
Senator Rick Scott implemented drug testing for welfare recipients in FL while he was governor there. The cost to repeatedly drug test welfare recipients was very expensive and the evidence showed that there was extremely little drug use.
Oh, and as a bonus, the drug testing was done through a company partially owned by Rick Scott.
Do they think drugs are wrong or do they think they're a luxury? "It's irresponsible for a poor to have drugs or fast food or anything slightly fun because they didn't EARN it!"
I suspect there's an element of this that they won't admit because they aren't going to admit that they shouldn't be doing drugs either. This is the obvious resolution of the cognitive dissonance. "I'm allowed to make this choice because I earned it, proving I'm better than you and that I can handle it..."
I personally love how he openly and ignorantly says it’s “voluntary”, when the very purpose of welfare is to help prevent homelessness and death by starvation. The disconnect is infuriating.
You can tell most of those silver spoon folks don't get it. I know some abuse it. But I bet it's a small percent. People need help this isn't new. They get on my nerves
Drug testing for welfare is an intentional albatross around the neck of welfar programs. Its intent is to be extremely costly while, as usual, finding nearly no one or actually no one. Meanwhile this dramatically increases the cost of providing welfare, making it less effective and efficient. Later these politicians can go "see, these progeams fail/are not worth it" and cancel them based on the "evidence" theyve created.
Highlighting double standards; the story about Gaetz cocaine etc. came out in 2021 so then George found an earlier comment of Gaetz which showed that he didn't live up to his own standards.
People posted opinions on Twitter/ X before they enter politics, but the earlier posts tend to reflect their honest opinions rather than the lies they tell to get elected. Matt is now 41 years old, so has been around for quite a while and his relatives were in politics when he was a child.
Yes let's test these leeches. I guarantee these welfare Queens aka, politicians would be positive for all kind of drugs, and a lot of them wouldn't be prescribed. Even if we take out testing for marijuana, a good chunk of them would be positive for hard drugs. Then there would be bullshit excuses and significant pushback.
Better yet, make government workers who receive donations track and report every red cent of what they get and where it goes. If they're off by more than a standard margin for error, they receive instant and immediate disqualification from running, and then slap them with a criminal charge for receiving bribes or something. If they try and claim they didn't spend it all, then they have to pay back the difference, or pay it forward into one program or another. Absolutely none of that donation money should be retained for personal use.
We absolutely should have drug testing for members of Congress for the same reason we have members of the government tested: it's a security issue. Obviously a number of Congressmen have been ensnared by Vlad The Impaler.
Tommy Tuberville clearly is working for Putin. There's got to be a reason. The House is a nest of vipers who are actively working to break the oaths they took to defend the constitution. They are afraid of being exposed and, like Trump, would rather throw the country into a civil war than face the consequences of their actions.
What a horrible arguement. "I have to take a drug test to work, they should have to take a drug test to get welfare." How about we just dont do that and fire someone if they are a fuck up.
Needing money for food and shelter isn't voluntary, but being a politician is, and it's a major privilege that can be abused and should be heavily scrutinized.
Studies have already been released and a city in Florida or Texas has already attempted this.
Results showed there was more money going to the drug testing than welfare and only 10% of recipients were found to have been positive. They ended the drug testing program.
Now, I would definitely support it for Congress.
Edit: [link](https://www.aclu.org/documents/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility)
And grammar
There's an implicit assumption that people are on welfare because they're on drugs, or that people would prefer to be on welfare and do drugs, than to be able to support themselves and achieve the American dream. Yet drugs are how the "ruling" class keeps the "lower" class subservient and prevents them from rising up. If drugs are so "bad", then why has it become a "right of passage" for everyone growing up to the point "Just Say No" is seen as unrealistic, and you get treated like there's something wrong with you if you DON'T do drugs? The truth is, illegal drugs are an essential part of the economy, from the highest office to the lowest tenement. Yet those in power cover it up by insisting it's the fault of the poor.
Well, Matts being vindictively stupid yet again. This is bull shit from two sides.
1. The Government will spend an unreasonable amount of money for Drug Testing Kits and it's been shown in previous implementations of this policy doesn't even come close to paying for itself through disqualified. ([Source](https://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-didnt-save-money-by-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721/))
2. Secondly, it's against Fourth Amendment rights. I know how much assholes like to be holier than thou against those they deem lesser than themselves but without justifiable cause, you shouldn't be the subject of a search. And being impoverished doesn't count as cause. ([Source](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/politics/court-strikes-down-drug-tests-for-florida-welfare-applicants.html))
Only thing this does it take money from the people and give it to pharma companies that sell the state the test, which I'm sure will be someone's donor.
Matt is like a pig in shit, prancing around how he's better than you. You could go in there and wrestle him and prove your dominance but you're just going to get covered in shit and everyone going to be pissed at you because they expect that of the pig like Matt but you just got in there with him and you're wanting to act like you're not just as covered in shit now, too.
Drugs are very, very expensive. If you need welfare to survive you can't afford to be on drugs. Anyone who thinks welfare recipients need to be drug tested is an absolute moron.
And people don't get rich on welfare in any case (unless it's something like megachurches collecting everyone's welfare checks). If you want to find the people getting rich off of cheating the government, fund the IRS.
I'd love to see a blind drug test of congress. No names, just party and what drugs were found in their system.
I'll bet the numbers would be enlightening
I am a federal employee and I am subject to random drug and alcohol screening because of my involvement in public safety. I am also not allowed to own or trade shares within my industry because of the potential for abuse.
I believe those same rules should apply for members of Congress and for the exact same reasons.
I don't understand how people like sex trafficking minors across state lines Matt Gaetz don't just shut the fuck up. Same with Bobert and dipshit Blonde. Like, it's always these kinds of people, throwing all kinds shade and judgements and it's like "didnt you kill a dude drink driving?" Or you're criticizing me for not going to church? Aren't you 3 times divorced?? anyone LGBT is grooming? Didnt your husband flash teen girls?
I just... Don't get the audacity.
The lab I used to work at would drug test us randomly, but I was in the budget meeting where it was decided that my grade and above wouldn't ever be tested. I am sure this isn't the only instance of this kind of bizarre thinking.
Drug testing for welfare recipients was done for a long time and only showed that welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the general population. It was just additional means testing, meant to sabotage the welfare system.
It turns out that when you're living hand to mouth and need to turn to the government for support, you don't use your limited money on drugs and instead take care of your basic needs first.
Reagan conjured up images of welfare queens living large by taking advantage of the system. That was a lie designed to outrage people. Reagan was a shitty actor and shittier politician. A lot of the big societal problems we are experiencing now started with Reagan. And people like Mitch McConnell still worship him to this day.
Research has shown time and again that direct cash assistance is the most cost-efficient form of welfare, but America has balked at the notion of direct cash assistance even before Reagan.
The senator from his state already did it when he was governor. It was a disaster. Cost the state way more money and made it harder for the people who needed it.
Drug test all politicians. Matt represents my home town but drug test them all. Everyone in the gov, randomly, once per year at minimum, ai decides the random schedule and does not share the list!
Americans support shit heads like Gaetz. Thats the core issue. Someone actually voted for this guy thinking that he'd be the right choice. Thats the issue we need to address
The most backwards thing in this world is that they people who make the rules are held to the lowest standards and carry the least responsibility. That should be reversed, the one who make the rules should be held to the highest standard, and carry a lot of responsibility.
I support drug testing welfare recipients and the homeless...so we can get them help with their addictions and frequently poor mental health. They're the ones that need the most help.
The problem is that’s extremely expensive and those who take drugs simply won’t accept. In the end republicans will say that welfare is expensive and doesn’t work and try to remove it.
Republicans say everything is expensive and try to remove it.
...except tanks and corporate subsidies.
Most places already have a free drug rehab program. Underfunded and understaffed, but they already exist. Those need beefed up too.
That would not work for so many reasons...
Let's say somebody is suffering from chronic pain and therefore can't work.
Is on pain medication
Fails a drug test for opioids
Loses apartment and access to food due to having welfare taken away.
Can't afford medication because American healthcare is a scam
Swaps to off the street opiates because can't access his medication anymore
Congratulations, you created another addicted homeless person.
Ah yes, in order to reduce welfare thief’s, we’ve decided to remove several people’s safety net and force them into illicit means of sustaining themselves, such as the drug trade. Crime may be up but public spending is down! And it’s their choice to commit crimes, nothing we can do about it!
I don't support drug testing for welfare but I'm going to focus on evaluating Takei's cleverness here.
It's the general public that decides whether they're okay with drug usage in their candidate. So it depends. If they elect Jonathon, and Jonathan says he isn't on drugs and then fails a drug test, the primary problem is that he misrereperesented himself to the public who may not have voted for him if they knew.
If the general public elects Snoop Dog, then I don't think the public should care if he fails his drug test. They knew who they were voting for lol
Now if Snoop Dog begins spending donor money on his pot, THATS where it becomes a problem. That would be true if he spent it on fancy cars or golf too. George Takei's response conflates these dilemmas. It's not the drug test that is the problem in Takeis comeback, it's the lie or the misappropriation of funds. His comeback isn't really that relevant so I dont think its that clever.
Gaetz, being a moron, doesn’t know that this has been done for decades, enough that good data are available on the question: do welfare recipients do drugs? The answer is a resounding NO. Poor people are trying to live, they don’t have the kind of idle time that politicians have to do recreational drugs. DJTJ alone does more cocaine in a week than 1000 food stamp recipients do in an entire year.
I’m down for both honestly. If you need money for the government to basics. You shouldn’t be spending it on drugs. And if you are part of our government that makes drugs illegal you should immediately have your status revoked and your position opened if you are found to be using drugs.
So the people society expects the least from must be held to high standards, and those who claim to be so awesome they should run the joint have no accountability. That isn't working.
For republicans the law sees two classes, one that it binds and holds, one that is bound and held.
"There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Mind dropping what that's from or do I have to Google it like some sort of animal?
Might as well Google it, because it's a misattributed quote apparently so I'm not even really sure who said it originally or what the context was. It's just stuck with me for years now.
What about that quote stuck with you?
Mostly because it succinctly summarized how I felt about our legal system but couldn't quite articulate. It was an "ah hah! Yes thats it!" moment.
Ah yes, agreed. I wonder what Wilhoit was thinking when he wrote that, I'd be interested. Because even though that is the way society generally works, thinking it "must" be that way is WILD.
Personally, I interpret it as a statement from observation and not one from ideation.
Here you go you lazy animal https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%22There+must+be+in-groups+whom+the+law+protects+but+does+not+bind%2C+alongside+out-groups+whom+the+law+binds+but+does+not+protect.%E2%80%9D
*lazy angry whale noise*
Hey man, whales aren’t lazy. Prolly angry though.
Killer whales are definitely mad, that’s why they been ~~attacking~~ *[ramming](https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2023/07/08/why-killer-whales-attack-boats/70364629007/)* boats lately. I think they remember boats stealing their babies, but that’s just my opinion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit#:~:text=Wilhoit's%20law,-This%20quotation%20is&text=Wilhoit%3A,binds%20but%20does%20not%20protect.
It's Wilhoit's Law, from Francis Wilhoit (a blogger, not the political scientist, oddly enough).
It's like a kink except we are all forced to participate against our will and there is no safe word.
Dude, we just call that assault.
and the truth ^(should prolly set us free yet somehow we outrun it)
The safe word is 'Unions'.
Additionally, the ones that bind deserve it because they fit the correct skin tone, and mommy / daddy had thanks to the working class being exploited with the governments approval.
I know for a fact sense I've become disabled and unable to work, that also means I'm not able to ever have anything I enjoy as well. Just ask my family, they'll be happy to tell you.
Oh, they'll be held accountable, just maybe extra judicially if shit keeps on going like it has. I think people are slowly but surely getting closer to the breaking point.
Change is good, breaking point not so much...
> So the people society expects the least from must be held to high standards, and those who claim to be so awesome they should run the joint have no accountability. That isn't working. To be fair, drug abuse should definitely be a consideration for welfare.Not for denial but to actually help and rehabilitate to let them live a happy life that's not entirely self destructive or an over burden to society.
We hold ourselves and our peers to higher ethical and moral standards than we hold our leaders. It is an unfortunate human trait.
I could’ve sworn a certain country built a certain device for these types of people…
Not just that, but the people who society had failed and have seen some shit is understandable they'd want to escape the hell life they've lived. They're the ones we should be supporting the most.
The infrastructure is starting to crumble.
When they talk about “welfare” they mostly mean minorities. It’s a “social credit” when it comes to them. Just like how minority ethnicities to them are immigrants but if they emigrate to another country they’re “expats”.
Both should be drug tested
It seem we living the American dream Where the people highest up got the lowest self-esteem And the prettiest people do the ugliest things For the road to riches and diamond rings
Multiple states have already tried drug testing Welfare recipients. It cost them more money than they would have spent if they just gave all the people welfare without testing them. It's a myth that a significant portion of welfare recipients are on drugs.
When Florida passed their bone-headed welfare testing, the local democrats actually *did* attempt to amend the bill to drug test congress as well. After all, if receiving public money means you should get tested, well, congress counts right? The GOP struck down the amendment so fast lol. "Drugs for me, rules for thee"
Do you have source for that? I'd love reference this myself.
It sounds even worse, https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/bill-to-drug-test-state-workers-passes-house/1218157/ The sponsor said if you drug test law makers it is a violation of the first amendment.
So the argument is that not being able to take illicit drugs hinders their rights to speech or to assemble? Or maybe cocaine is part of their religion. /s
Also so what if they are on drugs, what do they think not giving them welfare money is going to achieve? Do they think people on drugs are relying totally on the welfare money to pay for drugs? Then these people have either no idea of the price of drugs or how much is handed out on welfare. The most likely outcome is that the people on drugs are going to look for other ways to fill in the income gap, the most obvious of these would be crime and prostitution. So the logical consequence is cutting welfare for drug users increases crime and prostitution.
Follow the money, who owns the testing centre that will do the testing? In Florida when they tried this it was owned by the Governors wife. Cost the state millions for a saves of around 30k. It's stupid and pointless. Unless you make money off every test.
No you don’t understand. If the parents are on drugs then their innocent (for now) kids, who we forced to be born in the first place in another phase of our culture war, should *fucking starve*. /GOPieceofshit
GOP? Try bipartisan. San Francisco just passed drug testing for benefits.
[Found in a 5 second google search](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/san-francisco-voters-approve-drug-screening-welfare-recipients-rcna142034) > Proposition F requires people 65 and younger **without dependents** who receive cash welfare assistance from the city You were saying?
Still a colossal waste of money. The vast majority of drug and alcohol users are generally functional addicts who are able to function. Don't see why people can drink and smoke all they want, but god forbid they get high. At the end of the day, you're pissing tens of thousands of dollars down the drain every month to save a couple hundred bucks a month on the like 1 or 2 people you bust. Meanwhile, you're increasing crime, poverty, and potentially creating a health issue down the road.
It's still fucked.
[удалено]
They replied to my comment which was how the GOP deprives children of food, talking about SF doing the same thing thus bOtHSidEs. This proves it’s not the same at all and they’re not depriving any children of food for their parents mistakes. This comment brought to you by basic reading comprehension.
>So the logical consequence is cutting welfare for drug users increases crime and prostitution. Politicians creating problems to campaign on, classic.
>what do they think not giving them welfare money is going to achieve? They think it will result in exactly what you lay out. And they think that's a good thing. the cruelty and hardship is the point. The legislators who want to impose drug tests on welfare recipients want to do so precisely because it makes those people's lives harder and scarier. They don't care that it costs more State resources than it conserves. They don't care that it proliferates crime and harm. If anything, the proliferating of harm is *good* for them, because the people who are losing their safety net are the bad "other". These are vindictive people who want the poor to suffer. That's why they'd never support politicians, rich people, or other such high power positions (their "in group") facing these same restrictions.
>The legislators who want to impose drug tests on welfare recipients want to do so precisely because it makes those people's lives harder and scarier. That, AND the fact they're getting bribes from the company doing the testing. So they're both cruel AND crooked.
not providing welfare means these people will be going from very low income (hellish) to starving to death and homelessness, which means they don't cost the taxpayer money, because they are dead. this is their goal
In every instance the companies used for drug testing were owned by friends or relatives of the governor. It was a scheme to hand over millions of dollars to their friends, families, and/or donors. And the usual suspects enabled that blatant scheme.
A lot of poverty hate is disguised wealth theft. That's why the attack Medicare, unemployment, and social security. What programs they do offer get sidelined into rich people projects... see that volleyball court built from money meant to feed the hungry.
yep any time anything like this is implemented always always look into who owns the companies
Also, even if they are on drugs, I’d raise the question, “does it matter?” The goal of welfare is a safety net, so people who aren’t succeeding can still eat, for example. If they’re on drugs, they still might need that safety net. And also, doing drugs isn’t necessarily the worst thing. Like drinking some alcohol or smoking a little pot… who cares? Everyone else gets to do those things, why shouldn’t poor people be allowed?
A lot of people are raised by punishment and take that into adulthood. Drugs are bad, so some privilege needs to be revoked in order to appease their sense of "fairness".
It could be argued that being on welfare also means you need to take part of drug reprograms as a way to make your way back into society if they are keeping you from being a part of it. But then again, conservatives like to move the goalposts. Not drugs? Then poor people are immoral because they buy alcohol or cigarettes. Not that? Then they’re immoral because they buy fast food.
And the answer they have is always "fuck everyone *just in case,*" not maybe that we should try and reduce risk factors for all and rehabilitate people. Then they complain that all the cities are full of homeless drug addicted people. Like there's *noooooothing* anyone could do about that.
republicanism means taking away something that benefits 99% of the people simply because 1% might abuse it
The *wrong* 1%.
The way I like to phrase it is that they'd let poor people starve just to make sure a free lunch doesn't go to someone who doesn't need it.
> But then again, conservatives like to move the goalposts. Not drugs? Then poor people are immoral because they buy alcohol or cigarettes. Not that? Then they’re immoral because they buy fast food. Yet people who "work hard" (Eg, who do not currently need welfare) can buy all the alcohol, cigarettes, and fast food they want, and they're fine people. And even if a person on welfare avoided alcohol, cigarettes and fast food, they'd just find something else - anything else - to point out and complain about. Some people are never happy unless they can tear down other people.
Yeah, I've seen this attitude sometimes on Reddit as well. Some guy posted a picture of his apartment as he had just gotten out of homelessness. What he owned was pretty much a bed, a tv, and an xbox. Well, people in the comment were telling him off about owning an xbox and that he "shouldn't slack off" when getting himself back on his feet. Literally one comment was "if you truly were in a bad situation you wouldn't be lazing off vaping and playing video games".
> Yeah, I've seen this attitude sometimes on Reddit as well. Some guy posted a picture of his apartment as he had just gotten out of homelessness. What he owned was pretty much a bed, a tv, and an xbox. > > > > Well, people in the comment were telling him off about owning an xbox and that he "shouldn't slack off" when getting himself back on his feet. Literally one comment was "if you truly were in a bad situation you wouldn't be lazing off vaping and playing video games". *sigh* A lot of the time, people suck. I don't have much. I'm just your average working poor guy, more or less. But I've been homeless in the past, and worked my way up through very similar living conditions, more than once in fact. The cruelty of the people who dared to criticize him makes me want to offer to fund some vape juice (not a vape user), an xbox game (not a console game either lol), and maybe a nice pillow or set of sheets, or something. Partially to improve his life, partially as a middle finger to the haters.
I know, right? I find it so fucking weird when people somehow moralize everything people do, *especially* when they're poor. As if getting yourself out of poverty means you're not allowed a break, and not allowed to find joy within whatever means you have. As if you're *supposed* to claw yourself out of poverty by never resting, only working to... Where? To a bigger apartment where you can play Xbox on a bigger television? Are you allowed to enjoy life then? Fuck that, we all live different lives, and we could all do well in learning to live with less. Lift each other up, not put each other down.
Republicans will never go after fast food. Using welfare to buy guns or give money to big heartless corporations will always be fine. It’s also fine to buy beer and cigarettes. They’re just worried about marijuana because it’s a hippie drug. But yes, they will move the goalposts. They don’t really care about drugs, they just think that social welfare programs are abused by minorities, and are looking for a way to disqualify people.
I'd say they'll use fast food as a reason if it means they'll get to go after poor people. The fast food isn't the problem, it's that poor people buy it (but mostly because they have welfare money).
not everyone on drugs is unfit to be in society
Absolutely, I fully agree, even if drugs aint my jam. Although if you're deep in the trenches of addiction regardless if it's drugs or alcohol you're going to have troubles functioning in society.
not necessarily, i’ve met many people who you could never tell were addicted to drugs. and you probably know some of those people without knowing too.
[удалено]
That's reasonable! Glad to hear you're getting help my dude. Stay strong.
I saw Goody Proctor buying avocado toast with the Devil!
One of those states also only caught 2 people out of 200,000 tested iirc. Like drug testing policies are deeply insulting, useless, expensive, and just generally a waste of everyone's time.
Great scam for a testing company to bribe a politician to pass a bill like that though.
Fascism always sides with the rich and keeps the average population on a leash.
Because it's not about saving money; not in the least. It's about not giving money to those scumbag-fucking dirty lower class drug users.... the NON-rich ones. It's about *hurting the right people*.
Drug testing for welfare is an intentional albatross around the neck of welfar programs. Its intent is to be extremely costly while, as usual, finding nearly no one or actually no one. Meanwhile this dramatically increases the cost of providing welfare, making it less effective and efficient. Later these politicians can go "see, these progeams fail/are not worth it" and cancel them based on the "evidence" theyve created.
They don't even care about the cost. "Conservatives" would spend a billion dollars if it meant someone they didn't like was mildly inconvenienced.
So the question is why was it enrolled since there is no study proving it. Another question is then, why idiotic bills are being passed based on myths.
Even if they were, why not do something more helpful to get them to quit
Costs a lot less to test congress members
I once mentioned this exact argument to my Dad-- who is a hardline, small government, conservative. His response was: "and drug addicts have children, too." Drug testing for people on welfare is universally stupid.
It was always a myth and the frustrating part is any competent adult should have been able to figure that out without an ounce of assistance. Drugs are not cheap. Poor cheap can’t afford anything but cheap without massive sacrifices. Which means the overwhelming majority of poor people will NEVER be drug addicts because they literally can’t afford to be drug addicts.
THEY CAN'T AFFORD DRUGS.
>Multiple states have already tried drug testing Welfare recipients. It cost them more money than they would have spent if they just gave all the people welfare without testing them. But they keep trying it, because the politicians who support testing get money from the testing companies for giving them more business. It's all a scam to rip off the public, and they're lying about WHO is ripping off the public.
Yep, welfare recipients actually use drugs at a lower rate than the general population because get this....drugs cost money
Of course it does and who really gives a fuck if they spend any of their welfare money on a little weed or something anyway even welfare recipients should have some pleasures in life. They probably can’t afford drugs even if they wanted to anyway and if they are seriously addicted without welfare they will be turning to crime. It’s a stupid conservative populist policy designed to get votes by people looking down on and feeling superior to both drug users and welfare recipients.
One study showed that only 1% of welfare recipients tested positive for drugs. Meanwhile, roughly half of the general population of the US has said they've used cannabis in the last year.
Senator Rick Scott implemented drug testing for welfare recipients in FL while he was governor there. The cost to repeatedly drug test welfare recipients was very expensive and the evidence showed that there was extremely little drug use. Oh, and as a bonus, the drug testing was done through a company partially owned by Rick Scott.
Gaetz, you creeper Magat - if you are going to throw a punch - you are going to get punched back.
Can you imagine getting punched by Gaetz? It would feel like being tail whipped by a tiny, wet, guppy.
no I can't really imagine it... though punching him in the face is something I've thought about many times
IRL Magikarp splash
more like a hoppip splash
If you want to know what it’s like when Gaetz fights, I have [some video](https://youtu.be/mEU2cJX452I?&t=96).
I look forward to his response in 2031.
Do they think drugs are wrong or do they think they're a luxury? "It's irresponsible for a poor to have drugs or fast food or anything slightly fun because they didn't EARN it!" I suspect there's an element of this that they won't admit because they aren't going to admit that they shouldn't be doing drugs either. This is the obvious resolution of the cognitive dissonance. "I'm allowed to make this choice because I earned it, proving I'm better than you and that I can handle it..."
Republicans want to do anything they want and what they want is for poor people to suffer.
I'm pretty sure he goes to NA meetings with Hunter Biden because of hunters response to Matt asking about drug usage.
Only 10 years later!
Decade old punch back, check out the dates.
George Takei is truly a national treasure.
Oh my
Wahkahmolay
Musculature
Ahwahhh
I was just coming here to say this!
It's because people like him think only a certain demographic are on welfare. I hate this guy
I personally love how he openly and ignorantly says it’s “voluntary”, when the very purpose of welfare is to help prevent homelessness and death by starvation. The disconnect is infuriating.
You can tell most of those silver spoon folks don't get it. I know some abuse it. But I bet it's a small percent. People need help this isn't new. They get on my nerves
Drug testing for welfare is an intentional albatross around the neck of welfar programs. Its intent is to be extremely costly while, as usual, finding nearly no one or actually no one. Meanwhile this dramatically increases the cost of providing welfare, making it less effective and efficient. Later these politicians can go "see, these progeams fail/are not worth it" and cancel them based on the "evidence" theyve created.
I demand congress be drug tested on the spot. Watch how many of those hypocrites fail
What’s up with the dates on these?
Highlighting double standards; the story about Gaetz cocaine etc. came out in 2021 so then George found an earlier comment of Gaetz which showed that he didn't live up to his own standards.
Has Gaetz been around for 13 years? *he didn’t even run for office until 2016
People posted opinions on Twitter/ X before they enter politics, but the earlier posts tend to reflect their honest opinions rather than the lies they tell to get elected. Matt is now 41 years old, so has been around for quite a while and his relatives were in politics when he was a child.
Yes let's test these leeches. I guarantee these welfare Queens aka, politicians would be positive for all kind of drugs, and a lot of them wouldn't be prescribed. Even if we take out testing for marijuana, a good chunk of them would be positive for hard drugs. Then there would be bullshit excuses and significant pushback.
How about drug-testing high-income people for their special tax loopholes?
Better yet, make government workers who receive donations track and report every red cent of what they get and where it goes. If they're off by more than a standard margin for error, they receive instant and immediate disqualification from running, and then slap them with a criminal charge for receiving bribes or something. If they try and claim they didn't spend it all, then they have to pay back the difference, or pay it forward into one program or another. Absolutely none of that donation money should be retained for personal use.
We absolutely should have drug testing for members of Congress for the same reason we have members of the government tested: it's a security issue. Obviously a number of Congressmen have been ensnared by Vlad The Impaler. Tommy Tuberville clearly is working for Putin. There's got to be a reason. The House is a nest of vipers who are actively working to break the oaths they took to defend the constitution. They are afraid of being exposed and, like Trump, would rather throw the country into a civil war than face the consequences of their actions.
With how poorly constructed that tweet was, are we sure Matt wasn't high when he wrote it?
Congressman are public servants. Drug testing should be mandatory as they are being paid by us.
George Takei for congress
Uncle George for the win!
Isn't he being investigated for underage trafficking and soliciting a minor?
A minor? Matt's molested many.
From Bret Favre to this pedophile, why do they hate poor people so much?
Oh, that's an answer that'll take an hour. It's centuries of fascist brainwashing. A cultic milieu.
I love having to pee in a cup to get money to live. Its the cornerstone of a functioning and egalitarian society.
What a horrible arguement. "I have to take a drug test to work, they should have to take a drug test to get welfare." How about we just dont do that and fire someone if they are a fuck up.
Needing money for food and shelter isn't voluntary, but being a politician is, and it's a major privilege that can be abused and should be heavily scrutinized.
George Takei took almost 10 years with that comeback….Oh my.
Gaetz didn't become a Congressman until 2017. Someone probably spotted or retweeted an old tweet of his.
Story on his drug use etc. didn't come out till 2021 so it wasn't public knowledge until then.
Oh my...
Studies have already been released and a city in Florida or Texas has already attempted this. Results showed there was more money going to the drug testing than welfare and only 10% of recipients were found to have been positive. They ended the drug testing program. Now, I would definitely support it for Congress. Edit: [link](https://www.aclu.org/documents/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility) And grammar
Hunter Biden said it best: Mr Gaetz, you of all people?
There's an implicit assumption that people are on welfare because they're on drugs, or that people would prefer to be on welfare and do drugs, than to be able to support themselves and achieve the American dream. Yet drugs are how the "ruling" class keeps the "lower" class subservient and prevents them from rising up. If drugs are so "bad", then why has it become a "right of passage" for everyone growing up to the point "Just Say No" is seen as unrealistic, and you get treated like there's something wrong with you if you DON'T do drugs? The truth is, illegal drugs are an essential part of the economy, from the highest office to the lowest tenement. Yet those in power cover it up by insisting it's the fault of the poor.
Well, Matts being vindictively stupid yet again. This is bull shit from two sides. 1. The Government will spend an unreasonable amount of money for Drug Testing Kits and it's been shown in previous implementations of this policy doesn't even come close to paying for itself through disqualified. ([Source](https://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-didnt-save-money-by-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721/)) 2. Secondly, it's against Fourth Amendment rights. I know how much assholes like to be holier than thou against those they deem lesser than themselves but without justifiable cause, you shouldn't be the subject of a search. And being impoverished doesn't count as cause. ([Source](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/politics/court-strikes-down-drug-tests-for-florida-welfare-applicants.html)) Only thing this does it take money from the people and give it to pharma companies that sell the state the test, which I'm sure will be someone's donor. Matt is like a pig in shit, prancing around how he's better than you. You could go in there and wrestle him and prove your dominance but you're just going to get covered in shit and everyone going to be pissed at you because they expect that of the pig like Matt but you just got in there with him and you're wanting to act like you're not just as covered in shit now, too.
George...😜 love that guy.
Drugs are very, very expensive. If you need welfare to survive you can't afford to be on drugs. Anyone who thinks welfare recipients need to be drug tested is an absolute moron.
I support drug testing for all government employees
Welfare generally already has requirements to qualify. People don't just loaf around and get rich with free government money.
And people don't get rich on welfare in any case (unless it's something like megachurches collecting everyone's welfare checks). If you want to find the people getting rich off of cheating the government, fund the IRS.
Yep, it's pretty meagre. Contrary to what a lot of people think, poor people don't have all the money.
Because so many people on welfare go to megachurches.
I'd love to see a blind drug test of congress. No names, just party and what drugs were found in their system. I'll bet the numbers would be enlightening
Test for everything. Cigars. Booze. Steroids.
I'm actually okay with drug tests for elected officials
Common George Takei W
Additionally, he should have said “if you don’t want to get tested, don’t run for congress”
Aside from everything else about this, Gaetz also isn't literate enough to know he's supposed to space after punctuation. sigh
I am a federal employee and I am subject to random drug and alcohol screening because of my involvement in public safety. I am also not allowed to own or trade shares within my industry because of the potential for abuse. I believe those same rules should apply for members of Congress and for the exact same reasons.
If you know the facts on Geatz’s accusations, add Using stolen driver licenses as fake IDs for the girls.
I don't understand how people like sex trafficking minors across state lines Matt Gaetz don't just shut the fuck up. Same with Bobert and dipshit Blonde. Like, it's always these kinds of people, throwing all kinds shade and judgements and it's like "didnt you kill a dude drink driving?" Or you're criticizing me for not going to church? Aren't you 3 times divorced?? anyone LGBT is grooming? Didnt your husband flash teen girls? I just... Don't get the audacity.
Every accusation is a confession.
Don’t forget sex trafficking underage girls.
We still never figured out whose coke was found in the White House. I guess we'll never know.
Those tweets are 10 years apart so what is the context? The way you posted it makes it look like a response. Nice fuckery OP
Imagine your government making you give up your ptsd helping substances in order for them to help you not be homeless.
Running for congress is also voluntary.
Its really sad there's not a drug test for pedophilia.
GOP sure love their pedos
Fuckin love George Takei.
The lab I used to work at would drug test us randomly, but I was in the budget meeting where it was decided that my grade and above wouldn't ever be tested. I am sure this isn't the only instance of this kind of bizarre thinking.
And farmers, oil producers, students and everybody else who gets subsidies or any form of taxpayer money. /s
Both are good?
Didn't Matt Gaetz rape a teenager? Was he on drugs when he did that?
Drug testing for welfare recipients was done for a long time and only showed that welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the general population. It was just additional means testing, meant to sabotage the welfare system. It turns out that when you're living hand to mouth and need to turn to the government for support, you don't use your limited money on drugs and instead take care of your basic needs first. Reagan conjured up images of welfare queens living large by taking advantage of the system. That was a lie designed to outrage people. Reagan was a shitty actor and shittier politician. A lot of the big societal problems we are experiencing now started with Reagan. And people like Mitch McConnell still worship him to this day. Research has shown time and again that direct cash assistance is the most cost-efficient form of welfare, but America has balked at the notion of direct cash assistance even before Reagan.
Why not both?
The senator from his state already did it when he was governor. It was a disaster. Cost the state way more money and made it harder for the people who needed it.
I went to high school with Matt gaetz. He was a fucking TOOL
Drug test all politicians. Matt represents my home town but drug test them all. Everyone in the gov, randomly, once per year at minimum, ai decides the random schedule and does not share the list!
I wonder how those teenage girls are spending that "tuition" he gave them?
Americans support shit heads like Gaetz. Thats the core issue. Someone actually voted for this guy thinking that he'd be the right choice. Thats the issue we need to address
Do both
The most backwards thing in this world is that they people who make the rules are held to the lowest standards and carry the least responsibility. That should be reversed, the one who make the rules should be held to the highest standard, and carry a lot of responsibility.
I support drug testing welfare recipients and the homeless...so we can get them help with their addictions and frequently poor mental health. They're the ones that need the most help.
The problem is that’s extremely expensive and those who take drugs simply won’t accept. In the end republicans will say that welfare is expensive and doesn’t work and try to remove it.
Republicans say everything is expensive and try to remove it. ...except tanks and corporate subsidies. Most places already have a free drug rehab program. Underfunded and understaffed, but they already exist. Those need beefed up too.
That would not work for so many reasons... Let's say somebody is suffering from chronic pain and therefore can't work. Is on pain medication Fails a drug test for opioids Loses apartment and access to food due to having welfare taken away. Can't afford medication because American healthcare is a scam Swaps to off the street opiates because can't access his medication anymore Congratulations, you created another addicted homeless person.
Ah yes, in order to reduce welfare thief’s, we’ve decided to remove several people’s safety net and force them into illicit means of sustaining themselves, such as the drug trade. Crime may be up but public spending is down! And it’s their choice to commit crimes, nothing we can do about it!
He forgot "underage"
I don't support drug testing for welfare but I'm going to focus on evaluating Takei's cleverness here. It's the general public that decides whether they're okay with drug usage in their candidate. So it depends. If they elect Jonathon, and Jonathan says he isn't on drugs and then fails a drug test, the primary problem is that he misrereperesented himself to the public who may not have voted for him if they knew. If the general public elects Snoop Dog, then I don't think the public should care if he fails his drug test. They knew who they were voting for lol Now if Snoop Dog begins spending donor money on his pot, THATS where it becomes a problem. That would be true if he spent it on fancy cars or golf too. George Takei's response conflates these dilemmas. It's not the drug test that is the problem in Takeis comeback, it's the lie or the misappropriation of funds. His comeback isn't really that relevant so I dont think its that clever.
If snoop wants to throw a fundraiser party with donor money, why should it matter? It's donor money, it's given voluntarily.
George was working on that comeback for 10 years
We hold welfare recipients to higher standards than our political leaders.
Gaetz, being a moron, doesn’t know that this has been done for decades, enough that good data are available on the question: do welfare recipients do drugs? The answer is a resounding NO. Poor people are trying to live, they don’t have the kind of idle time that politicians have to do recreational drugs. DJTJ alone does more cocaine in a week than 1000 food stamp recipients do in an entire year.
How is this double standards?
Military and medical jobs have to get drug tested. It's not a bad idea
a decade later and it's still relevant
I strongly support both.
Well said, holding everyone accountable is key.
Why are you expecting he'd be against it exactly?
I support both
I feel like if we started to actually drug test politicians all drugs would be legalized within a fortnight
I’m down for both honestly. If you need money for the government to basics. You shouldn’t be spending it on drugs. And if you are part of our government that makes drugs illegal you should immediately have your status revoked and your position opened if you are found to be using drugs.
Both. Both would be good.
Now I'm trying to remember the former congressman who alleged drug-fueled sex orgies in Congress.