Bill would add potential drug test for welfare

lonedog3 3 months, 1 week ago

It is only fair that those of that work to pay the taxes which in turn pay the welfare recipients have to commit to regular drug testing that they should as well! I would bet the liberal side in Olympia forces this bill down though as unconstitutional.

amw 3 months, 1 week ago

#1" It would require applicants whom case workers have determined have a drug problem to undergo a drug test " With this stipulation I think it would have support. Other states have instituted laws that call for All to submit to testing - the cost spent for testing far exceeded the money "saved" by identifying drug users on welfare.
#2" would allow them to continue receiving benefits while seeking treatment as long as they stay drug-free." I think this would deal with concerns that children would be further deprived. I think this sounds like a law that could pass.

JimboBear 3 months, 1 week ago

" It would require applicants whom case workers have determined have a drug problem . . . "

Why wait until some case worker has pointed a finger? I'm for testing everyone who is currently receiving benefits and and anyone who applies in the future before they receive another nickel..

lonedog3 3 months, 1 week ago

and if they fail they lose benefits instantly! If one can afford drugs and alcohol they probably do not need welfare.

JimboBear 3 months, 1 week ago

I would agree Joe, but for the sake of the innocents involved, which mostly means the kids, I would say that if the adult is willing to accept treatment, become clean and stay clean, then they should continue to revieve at least a partial benefit amount. I don't think it would be fair to punish the kids for the errant behavior of the parents. They're not able to change their parent's habits.

davebugg 3 months, 1 week ago

The kids, in such a situation, should be immediately removed from the 'parent' and placed into foster care. There is no reason for children to suffer at the hands of a drug-addled 'parent' who is instilling its values to the next generation, nor provide taxpayer-funded welfare to such a 'parent'.

After the 'parent' has cleaned up and maintained a history of staying clean and sober, has a steady employment history, and receives two thumbs up from both the children's guardian ad litem and social worker, then custody can return to the 'parent' because they have now become an actual parent.

Norm 3 months, 1 week ago

"The kids, in such a situation, should be immediately removed from the 'parent' and placed into foster care. There is no reason for children to suffer at the hands of a drug-addled 'parent' who is instilling its values to the next generation,"

If your concern here is truly for the children, then shouldn't ALL parents be forced to submit to such testing? And shouldn't parents who consume more dangerous drugs face a greater risk of losing their children than those who consume less dangerous drugs? And since its an objective fact that alcohol puts children (and others) at far greater risk than cannabis, should any parent who ever consumes alcohol have their children taken away by the state?

davebugg 3 months, 1 week ago

The dividing line occurs when people are totally dependent on the state welfare system vs those who are not. So, no, "everyone" who has a child should not have to submit to state-required testing. Additionally, there already exists a mechanism of protection for children of those parents who are not on welfare, including mandatory testing of those 'parents' and the forced removal of their children.

It happens when those non-welfare parents end up on the radar of Child Protective Services. Such occurs because of reporting, observations, or by other means which results in state intervention on behalf of the children.

I made no distinction between alcohol or drugs which are legal and are misused. Legal substances, whether alcohol or cannabis or prescription narcotics that are abused in non-welfare 'parents', and comes to the attention of CPS, should have children removed from that home.

Norm 3 months, 1 week ago

"The dividing line occurs when people are totally dependent on the state welfare system vs those who are not."

Should the children of recipients of corporate welfare also be taken from their parents by the state if those parents fail such tests? If not, why are those children not entitled to the same protection by the state that poor children are entitled to under this proposed bill? Why stop at welfare kings? Why aren't all children entitled to that level of protection by the nanny state?

It's hard to imagine a more intrusive use of state power than using that power to take children away from their parents. If government can't do anything right, what makes you believe that such a system, targeted only at the poor, could and would be implemented fairly?

"whether alcohol or cannabis or prescription narcotics that are abused"

You are distinguishing being use and abuse. How can a blood test/urine sample make such a distinction?

davebugg 3 months, 1 week ago

"Should the children of recipients of corporate welfare also be taken from their parents by the state if those parents fail such tests?"

You mean recipients of a salary paid for by their labor? No, of course not. No more so than parents who are employed by federal, state, or local government. Do you mean the administers and board members of a corporation who are working? No, of course not.

I applaud your inventiveness at trying to negate differences between those who labor for their salaries and those who do not. Seriously.

"If not, why are those children not entitled to the same protection by the state that poor children are entitled to under this proposed bill?"

There are reasons why some parents are on state-provided welfare. The state has a vested interest in eliminating issues that perpetuate total dependence on the state. One of those are parent's who are unemployed and therefore incapable of providing for their children's basic needs because of illegal or legal drugs and alcohol abuse.

Children of parents who are earning a living are not dependent on the state, so the state has no direct invested interest unless those parents require state intervention for their children.

"Why stop at welfare kings? Why aren't all children entitled to that level of protection by the nanny state?"

The "nanny state" is dysfunctional if it does not attempt to wean those of its dependents which can be on their own.

It's hard to imagine a more intrusive use of state power than using that power to take children away from their parents. If government can't do anything right, what makes you believe that such a system, targeted only at the poor, could and would be implemented fairly?

"You are distinguishing being use and abuse. How can a blood test/urine sample make such a distinction?"

Thus far, it can't. That does not invalidate doing the testing, it simply means that testing for drugs follows the same protocols that the transportation industry follows. That protocol allows for false positives and for legal use. Those who turn up with a 'positive' would be confidentially contacted by the testing facility -- prior to notifying the employer (or the state) -- to give an explanation for the 'positive' finding. The person tested can then tell the testing facility the name of the doctor who legally prescribed the drug. That care provider is contacted for verification. If the care provider validates what the person tested claims, the testing facility reports a "negative" test to the company or state. If the care provider disputes the claim, then the testing company reports the test as "positive".

Over two million employees providing direct commercial transportation are routinely randomly tested in this manner. When I was driving truck, I had one test come up 'positive' one time. When contacted by the testing company, I gave them the information for my prescription and my test was then returned to my company as 'negative'.

Norm 3 months, 1 week ago

"You mean recipients of a salary paid for by their labor?"

No, I mean precisely what I said: recipients of corporate welfare. If you're unfamiliar with the term, here's some background:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578216583921471560.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/

"I applaud your inventiveness at trying to negate differences between those who labor for their salaries and those who do not. Seriously."

I would never negate that distinction. The fact that those who do not labor for their salaries - the hereditary aristocracy and others who support themselves by gambling in the Wall Street casino - are taxed at a much lower rate (capital gains) than those who work for a living is disgusting.

"Children of parents who are earning a living are not dependent on the state, so the state has no direct invested interest unless those parents require state intervention for their children."

Well, at least your honesty is refreshing. Thank you for admitting that your proposal is based only on an interest in money, not an interest in the welfare of children.

"It's hard to imagine a more intrusive use of state power than using that power to take children away from their parents. If government can't do anything right, what makes you believe that such a system, targeted only at the poor, could and would be implemented fairly?"

IT seems that you had intended to answer this point but that it got lost in the shuffle. I'm curious to see your answer.

" (You are distinguishing being use and abuse. How can a blood test/urine sample make such a distinction?)

Thus far, it can't. That does not invalidate doing the testing, it simply means that testing for drugs follows the same protocols that the transportation industry follows."

OK. Suppose a blood test can be developed that shows whether a person consumed a beer in the last week. Should that person be labeled an alcohol "abuser" the same as a person with a test that shows he consumed cannabis one time in the previous week is routinely labeled a cannabis "abuser"?

Should the state take children away from any person who drinks a beer or consumes cannabis, or should it only take the children of poor people? Why not just save the money spent on all that testing and just take poor people's children away from them regardless of whether they use alcohol or other drugs? Since your stated goal is simply to save money rather than to protect or help children, why spend any money on medical tests?

Why not just take poor peoples' children away from them and throw those kids out on the street - we can't have the state paying to feed, clothe, and house those children, after all, or we wouldn't be saving any money.

JimboBear 3 months, 1 week ago

Norm, I'm not going to debate this with you because it's just a bit too close to my heart, but I have a feeling that you have very little to no first hand knowledge of the "welfare class" or the brutal reality of child abuse in all it's ugly forms and the subsequent removal of kids from their homes. I can tell you for a fact that there are many kids out there who shed tears of joy when they are finally taken away from a home life too horrible for them to accept. I'm not condemning your concern for the kids, the welfare system, or the parents who lose their kids, just saying that I don't believe you actually understand what you are talking about. Sorry if that offends you, but I believe you have to live it to understand it fully.

Norm 3 months, 1 week ago

"I have a feeling that you have very little to no first hand knowledge of the "welfare class" "

I've lived and worked among the working poor for the bulk of my life.

"or the brutal reality of child abuse in all it's ugly forms and the subsequent removal of kids from their homes. I can tell you for a fact that there are many kids out there who shed tears of joy when they are finally taken away from a home life too horrible for them to accept."

This is an entirely different topic. I do not for one instant condone child abuse in any form, by any person, in any circumstances, for any reason. What I am condemning here is demonization of the poor and persecution of the innocent.

As Mr. Bugg confirmed above, "concern for the children" is just a false flag to rationalize further demonization of the poor and persecution of the innocent, for nothing more than the love of money. If the concern was actually about the welfare of children rather than lowering taxes, then such measures and penalties would be applied to ALL people, not just the poor, and the drug primarily targeted would be the one that is implicated in the overwhelming majority of cases of child abuse: alcohol.

The overwhelming majority of the "War on Drugs" is and always has been a war on cannabis and cannabis users, and it is and always has been based on misinformation, prejudice, and outright lies.

JimboBear 3 months, 1 week ago

"I've lived and worked among the working poor for the bulk of my life."

I said nothing about the working poor. You need to move to a welfare community which is what I was suggesting when I said "welfare class". Big difference. And I doubt that you understood what I was talking about when I said "child abuse" either. Quite often, child abuse has nothing to do with physical abuse, and no, it's not an "entirely different topic" as you state.

I think that perhaps you and I are thinking on far different levels here. If nothing else, your mention of "working poor" and "cannabis"as a drug use problem show me that. I was thinking of the abuse that doesn't show marks and scars on the child's body but follows them far into adulthood. I was thinking of the children born to drug addicted mothers and even when separated from the birth parents will never know a normal life because of the brain damage they received when they were still in the womb. Here I am drifting a bit off topic, but you'll find a great deal of those mothers (and probably the fathers too) were supported by the state for much of their lives or at least for certain periods of their lives.

Anyway, I said I wouldn't debate it with you and I won't, but I for one can see the fallacy of your saving the down trodden masses and being their champion of justice. The real "welfare class" will cheer you on and take everything you are willing to give them or provide for them, but they won't give you back the time of day or afford you one iota of respect. They're too busy laughing at you.

Norm 3 months, 1 week ago

"I said nothing about the working poor."

Then you are entirely off topic. That's who this bill will target.

"You need to move to a welfare community which is what I was suggesting when I said "welfare class"."

I can't afford to, but I have worked on crews building their palaces.

"no, it's not an "entirely different topic" as you state."

Yes, its entirely different. This bill targets the working poor and cannabis users. It does not target child abuse.

"I think that perhaps you and I are thinking on far different levels here. If nothing else, your mention of "working poor" and "cannabis"as a drug use problem show me that."

Yes, we are. I'm talking about the targets of this bill. You're talking about something entirely different, and very much off topic.

"I was thinking of the children born to drug addicted mothers and even when separated from the birth parents will never know a normal life because of the brain damage they received when they were still in the womb."

Yes, I'm aware of the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome.

"Anyway, I said I wouldn't debate it with you and I won't,"

That's how you begin every debate.

"The real "welfare class" will cheer you on and take everything you are willing to give them or provide for them, but they won't give you back the time of day or afford you one iota of respect. They're too busy laughing at you."

No, the real welfare class despises me and those like me who oppose their public and private theft, and it is you and others like you who defend their unearned privileges that they are laughing at.

davebugg 3 months, 1 week ago

"As Mr. Bugg confirmed above, "concern for the children" is just a false flag to rationalize further demonization of the poor and persecution of the innocent, for nothing more than the love of money."

What I actually stated vs what you say I "confirmed", is no more similar than a chocolate chip cookie is to a cow patty.

Norm 3 months, 1 week ago

It's right there in black and white. You actually stated: "The dividing line occurs when people are totally dependent on the state welfare system vs those who are not. So, no, "everyone" who has a child should not have to submit to state-required testing." and "Children of parents who are earning a living are not dependent on the state, so the state has no direct invested interest "

davebugg 3 months, 1 week ago

"It's right there in black and white."

That's right, it's right there in black and white. My very first comments were concerned about the children's welfare, as well as that of getting the parent's cleaned up so that they could be effective parent "The kids, in such a situation, should be immediately removed from the 'parent' and placed into foster care. There is no reason for children to suffer at the hands of a drug-addled 'parent' who is instilling its values to the next generation, nor provide taxpayer-funded welfare to such a 'parent'. After the 'parent' has cleaned up and maintained a history of staying clean and sober, has a steady employment history, and receives two thumbs up from both the children's guardian ad litem and social worker, then custody can return to the 'parent' because they have now become an actual parent."

"You actually stated: "The dividing line occurs when people are totally dependent on the state welfare system vs those who are not. So, no, "everyone" who has a child should not have to submit to state-required testing." and "Children of parents who are earning a living are not dependent on the state, so the state has no direct invested interest"

Those were replies directly in response to your argument that that the vested interest of the state is no different regardless of whether or not someone is directly supported by the state. Moreover, I pointed out specifically, in a post above, that even if the state provides no direct support for a parent, CPS can and does remove children from parents who either neglect or abuse children.

Being poor does not make one a bad parent. Having the state support oneself does not make one a bad parent. Being dependent upon the state for support as a parent because of drugs, does make one a bad and neglectful 'parent'.

As I said above, what I actually stated vs what you say I "confirmed", is no more similar than a chocolate chip cookie is to a cow patty.

Norm 3 months, 1 week ago

"My very first comments were concerned about the children's welfare, as well as that of getting the parent's cleaned up"

Only if they're poor. You defined a "dividing line" between how the law should treat the rich v. how it should treat the poor. A measure that was designed to target child abuse rather than poor people would not have such a "dividing line".

"Those were replies directly in response to your argument that that the vested interest of the state is no different regardless of whether or not someone is directly supported by the state."

I said nothing about any "vested interest", I discussed what sort of protection children are entitled to. "Vested interest" was your phrase and your concept - another way to describe your "dividing line" between how the state should treat the rich v. how it should treat the poor.

"Moreover, I pointed out specifically, in a post above, that even if the state provides no direct support for a parent, CPS can and does remove children from parents who either neglect or abuse children."

Then why grant CPS greater power to go after the poor than after others? If CPS already has sufficient powers to protect children, then it needs no greater powers; If CPS needs additional powers to adequately protect children, then it should be granted those powers to protect ALL children.

"Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Jus...

davebugg 3 months, 1 week ago

"Only if they're poor. You defined a "dividing line" between how the law should treat the rich v. how it should treat the poor..." ...snip of entire response for brevity and non-repetitiveness.

Every point that you have made has been previously made by you and replied to by me. Everyone can just go and re-read the thread as it now stands.

davebugg 3 months, 1 week ago

" If you're unfamiliar with the term, here's some background:"

The term and all of its Occupy Wall Street and class warfare connotations and belief systems are understood.

".... are taxed at a much lower rate (capital gains) than those who work for a living is disgusting."

I get that you find the rich disgusting and you don't like the tax rates or tax structure. Back on point, though, the rich who have children are not supported by state DSHS-sponsored public assistance.

"Thank you for admitting that your proposal is based only on an interest in money, not an interest in the welfare of children."

As stated prior, my proposal was based on two things: 1. Remove those who are receiving public assistance from tax payer funded support. 2. If they do have children, then remove those children, whose parents are unable to support them because of substance abuse problems, and place them into a less harmful situation.

"IT seems that you had intended to answer this point but that it got lost in the shuffle. I'm curious to see your answer."

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. I was hurrying too much and messed up the attributions. Besides, I do not support the notion that government cannot do anything right.

"OK. Suppose a blood test can be developed that shows whether a person consumed a beer in the last week. Should that person be labeled an alcohol "abuser" the same as a person with a test that shows he consumed cannabis one time in the previous week is routinely labeled a cannabis "abuser"?"

That is an artificial construct. The state does not prohibit either legal alcohol or legal cannabis use. It does or will -- in the case of cannabis -- regulate its misuse. So, testing positive for either alcohol or pot would not be part of the test panel, only illegal drugs. I've already explained how the commercial transportation industry drug and alcohol testing eliminates legitimate uses of legal prescriptions.

In the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration -- the FMCSA -- cannabis use is not legal. Truck drivers are, as are pilots and ships captains, licensed under federal authority, not state authority. However, in this state, cannabis use is legal for state residents, presuming, which I will, that the feds allow the states to begin dealing with pot as a state issue. Public assistance rules and eligibility are determined by the state, not the feds.

Federal transportation guidelines do not prohibit license holders from drinking alcohol except within set restrictions based on proximity to active duty status.

"Why not just take poor peoples' children away from them and throw those kids out on the street -"

Leaving aside the incorrect assumption that all poor people are on public assistance, or that they all use drugs while receiving public assistance, why would you want to do that to anyone's child? I certainly never said any such thing, nor do I support such a notion.

Norm 3 months, 1 week ago

"The term and all of its Occupy Wall Street and class warfare connotations and belief systems are understood."

By whom? Apparently not by you, hence your question. Neither The Wall Street Journal nor the Cato Institute (the first 2 of the 3 links I provided) are fans of OWS, although they both favor class warfare against all but the very wealthy.

"I get that you find the rich disgusting"

False.

" and you don't like the tax rates or tax structure."

True.

"Back on point, though, the rich who have children are not supported by state DSHS-sponsored public assistance."

You are correct, the welfare accessed by the rich comes from other programs. Check the WSJ and other links I provided for more information.

"as stated prior, my proposal was based on two things: 1. Remove those who are receiving public assistance from tax payer funded support."

Only if they're poor.

"If they do have children, then remove those children, whose parents are unable to support them because of substance abuse problems, and place them into a less harmful situation."

Again, only if they're poor. You and the sponsors of this and other similar bills are targeting poor people, not child abusers.

"That is an artificial construct."

No, it is the practical effect of this bill and your proposed additions to it.

"So, testing positive for either alcohol or pot would not be part of the test panel, only illegal drugs."

In most cases of drug-related child abuse, the related drug is alcohol; if anything is tested, it should be alcohol (if the actual goal were to protect children). As for cannabis, the Bellingham Herald, in a story on the bill in question wrote:

"While the bill doesn't specify what drugs DSHS would test for, under Washington law, a controlled substance is defined as any drug listed as a Schedule 1-5 drug under state or federal law. Marijuana is still considered a Schedule 1 drug under both state and federal law, even with the passage of Initiative 502, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana in Washington state."

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/02/13/2878145/bill-would-add-potential-drug.html#storylink=cpy

And all too often, even mere posession of small amounts of cannabis is treated as per se child abuse http://www.childlaw.us/2011/08/legal-marijuana-possession-chi.html

"However, in this state, cannabis use is legal for state residents, presuming, which I will, that the feds allow the states to begin dealing with pot as a state issue."

I don't advise betting on that presumption.

davebugg 3 months, 1 week ago

"By whom? Apparently not by you, hence your question."

Yes, by me. The question was posed because your use of the term was broad and could have applied to both categories for which I asked clarification.

"False".

Well, we're in agreement, on one small point at least.

"Back on point, though, the rich who have children are not supported by state DSHS-sponsored public assistance."

"You are correct, the welfare accessed by the rich comes from other programs."

That analogy doesn't work.

"Only if they're poor."

You must meet poverty guidelines to be on public assistance. And since not every person who is poor is on public assistance, this is most certainly not about poor people, but those who participate in public assistance.

"Again, only if they're poor. You and the sponsors of this and other similar bills are targeting poor people, not child abusers."

Again, since not every person who is poor is on public assistance, this is most certainly not about poor people, but only those who participate in public assistance.

"No, it is the practical effect of this bill and your proposed additions to it."

Unless alcohol has been misused, its use has never constituted neglect or abuse by CPS. Neither has legally using medical marijuana, and I suspect the same will hold true for legal recreational cannabis use. As I said, yours was an artificial construct.

"So, testing positive for either alcohol or pot would not be part of the test panel, only illegal drugs."

"In most cases of drug-related child abuse, the related drug is alcohol"

The threshold of abuse is not evidenced by the mere presence of alcohol, it is the misuse of alcohol. That is why your example of one beer a week is irrelevant, and why routine and random testing panels would not include alcohol.

".. if anything is tested, it should be alcohol (if the actual goal were to protect children). As for cannabis, the Bellingham Herald, in a story on the bill in question wrote:..."

If that is what you want to see happen, then that is what you want to see happen. And while the Bellingham Herald has its take on the subject of pot and the current state of the law, the state is working to fully implement the law as it applies to all eligible citizens. It may be a bit before all the legislative hoo-doo dust is settled, but the direction it is going will not disallow non-abusive, recreational pot use by those on public assistance.

"And all too often, even mere posession of small amounts of cannabis is treated as per se child abuse http://www.childlaw.us/2011/08/legal-marijuana-possession-chi.html"

True, but that was then, the law is in flux now.

"I don't advise betting on that presumption."

And I don't advise betting against it. :-)

Norm 3 months ago

(You are correct, the welfare accessed by the rich comes from other programs.) "That analogy doesn't work."

It's not an analogy; its a statement of fact. The spin that the taxes paid by the poor aren't really taxes and that the welfare collected by the rich isn't really welfare is false.

"since not every person who is poor is on public assistance, this is most certainly not about poor people, but only those who participate in public assistance."

You are targeting only the types of public assistance accessible to the poor; not the types of public assistance used by the rich, thus you are targeting only the poor and excluding the rich.

"Neither has legally using medical marijuana, and I suspect the same will hold true for legal recreational cannabis use. As I said, yours was an artificial construct."

Any and all use of cannabis is defined as abuse by the federal government.

"The threshold of abuse is not evidenced by the mere presence of alcohol, it is the misuse of alcohol. That is why your example of one beer a week is irrelevant, and why routine and random testing panels would not include alcohol"

I was applying the same standard to alcohol that is applied to cannabis. That's why its relevant.

"while the Bellingham Herald has its take on the subject of pot and the current state of the law,"

The Herald article is reporting facts, not stating an opinion.

"And all too often, even mere posession of small amounts of cannabis is treated as per se child abuse http://www.childlaw.us/2011/08/legal-marijuana-possession-chi.html"

True, but that was then, the law is in flux now.

"its use has never constituted neglect or abuse by CPS. Neither has legally using medical marijuana, "

Spot the contradiction.

davebugg 3 months ago

"It's not an analogy; its a statement of fact. The spin that the taxes paid by the poor aren't really taxes and that the welfare collected by the rich isn't really welfare is false."

If your analogy were true, then if one were in favor of eliminating all monies given by federal, state, and local governments to businesses which are incorporated -- except for the same kinds of tax breaks that non-corporate taxpayers like you and I receive, then one would also be in favor of eliminating all forms of public monies funding any welfare programs for folks.

While reverting back to true capitalism by divesting corporations of government monies, I do not see that this means we must also divest those, who truly qualify for DSHS public assistance, from receiving welfare.

"You are targeting only the types of public assistance accessible to the poor; not the types of public assistance used by the rich, thus you are targeting only the poor and excluding the rich."

Answered above

"Any and all use of cannabis is defined as abuse by the federal government."

I know that. However, it is the state government, not the Feds, which defines, implements, monitors, and evaluates the public assistance programs via state WACs and the regualatory RCWs. That is how the state deals with medical cannabis, and how it is in the process of dealing with recreational legalization. The federal government has no role in this process. It has only two practical methods of reacting to all of this: 1). It can choose to withhold any federal funding contributions to our state's public programs. 2). When there are no longer pot arrests and prosecutions made by the state because state law is no longer being violated, the feds can come in to make arrests of individuals based on federal code violations for marijuana usage.

So it is up to the state, not the Feds, to decide what substances they wish to test for during a random screening. If the WACs and the RCWs define pot use as legal, then DSHS must come into compliance.

"I was applying the same standard to alcohol that is applied to cannabis. That's why its relevant."

And I was providing that example for alcohol use as to why the use of pot would not be problematic if it is given legal standing. That is why your comment was irrelevant.

"The Herald article is reporting facts, not stating an opinion."

It was providing an evaluation of the facts that it had gathered. That evaluation is, most decidedly, an opinion or viewpoint.

*"its use has never constituted neglect or abuse by CPS. Neither has legally using medical marijuana,"

Spot the contradiction."*

Provide the exact full quotes I made, in the context given, and I will be happy to do so should such exist.

Norm 3 months ago

"If your analogy were true, then if one were in favor of eliminating all monies given by federal, state, and local governments to businesses which are incorporated -- except for the same kinds of tax breaks that non-corporate taxpayers like you and I receive, then one would also be in favor of eliminating all forms of public monies funding any welfare programs for folks."

That's ridiculous. You are saying that for any A and B, if a person supports spending on A, then one must also support spending on B.

"It was providing an evaluation of the facts that it had gathered. That evaluation is, most decidedly, an opinion or viewpoint."

You clearly do not understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. A statement of opinion is an untestable personal feeling, such as "avocados taste good". A statement of fact is a statement that can be objectively proven or disproven, like "avocados contain cyanide" (a statement of fact that is likely false) or "avocados contain vitamin C" (a statement of fact that is probably true).

Please explain which of these clauses you believe express a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact:

.A. While the bill doesn't specify what drugs DSHS would test for,

.B. under Washington law, a controlled substance is defined as any drug listed as a Schedule 1-5 drug under state or federal law.

.C. Marijuana is still considered a Schedule 1 drug under both state and federal law,

.D. even with the passage of Initiative 502,

.E. which legalized the recreational use of marijuana in Washington state."

"Provide the exact full quotes I made, in the context given, and I will be happy to do so should such exist."

No. If you want to see the context, scroll up, its already right there. I copied enough of your statement so that you could see what I was referring to.

You said X never happens, so I proved that your statement of fact is false by providing an example of X happening.

davebugg 3 months ago

"That's ridiculous."

It is, and I said as much in the next paragraph. Which is why the analogy you gave also falls into the ridiculous category.

"You are saying that for any A and B, if a person supports spending on A, then one must also support spending on B."

No, I was making the point that that is what you have been saying with your analogy, only with drug testing instead of spending. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the argument that your analogy was attempting to make.

"You clearly do not understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact."

Based on your statement, it is clear that you do not possess the facts about Scheduled drugs, as is evidenced by your opinion. The clear opinion of the article is the presumption that a Scheduled drug equals an illegal drug; which means that recreational marijuana use in this state would be illegal despite the passage of the initiative. A statement of fact would be that most Scheduled drugs are legal, but must be controlled in a manner consistent with state and federal laws. A statement of fact would be that the most restricted Scheduled drugs are illegal except in specially approved research. A statement of fact would also be that WA State is creating the methodology to legalize cannabis as a Scheduled drug for recreational use despite federal prohibitionsd. A statement of fact includes that portion of my previous post which detailed what the Feds can and cannot do when the new WACs and the revised RCWs are put into effect. A statement of fact is that since recreational pot use will be legal in this state, just as is alcohol, there is no reason to include either in a test for illegal substances because any test would fall under state regulations and jurisdiction, not federal.

"Please explain which of these clauses you believe express a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact:"

See above.

"No. If you want to see the context, scroll up, its already right there. I copied enough of your statement so that you could see what I was referring to."

Thanks for admitting that you copied only portions of my postings without the proper context. That was the point that I was going for. If you wish for me to play a game of having me spot a claimed contradiction, then the rule is that you must cut-n-paste the entirety of those quotes, with the context of each quote intact. Without rules, there can be no game.

Norm 3 months ago

"No, I was making the point that that is what you have been saying with your analogy, only with drug testing instead of spending. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the argument that your analogy was attempting to make"

Since logic clearly isn't your strong suit, I will try to explain the concept one more time in words that you might be able to comprehend. You claimed that since I support government assistance for the poor, then I must also support government assistance for the wealthy. If your logic is correct, then since you support government assistance for the wealthy, then you must also support government assistance for the poor. These are both ridiculous conclusions.

"The clear opinion of the article is the presumption that a Scheduled drug equals an illegal drug; "

Please attempt to substantiate your claim. Also, please explain how any of the clauses from the portion of the article I quoted (conveniently labeled A through E) are statements of opinion rather than fact.

"Thanks for admitting that you copied only portions of my postings without the proper context. That was the point that I was going for."

Very clever. You tricked me into admitting a point that is already in plain view. The only reason to quote any portion of your previous post(s) is to clarify what points I am responding to, I always quote enough to provide that clarity; the context is already there on the very same page for any who want to read it for themselves. There is absolutely no reason to repaste your post in its entirety, and I will not do so. If you can't scroll up, then I can't help you find the context you seek.

davebugg 3 months ago

"Since logic clearly isn't your strong suit,.."

Well, that sure put me in my place and won you the debate. I surrender.

"..I will try to explain the concept one more time.."

That is only necessary if you've found your explanation insufficient the first two times. It isn't, though, it remains the same. My rebuttal still stands and needs no repeat.

"Please attempt to substantiate your claim."

Already done.

*"Also, please explain how any of the clauses from the portion of the article I quoted (conveniently labeled A through E) are statements of opinion rather than fact."

Already done

"Very clever. You tricked me into admitting a point that is already in plain view."

I tricked no one. You apparently tricked yourself despite the fact that the point made ".. is already in plain view."

"There is absolutely no reason to repaste your post in its entirety, and I will not do so. If you can't scroll up, then I can't help you find the context you seek."

This isn't about my contextual understanding, I don't need you to provide the proper attributions for my sake. It is for the reader's sake. If you are going to try and play my writings off of each other, than you are simply going to have to do the proper cuttin'-n-pastin' in order to provide the proper context for anyone following this portion of the thread. Folks aren't going to be scrolling back and forth trying to find the proper context for your out-of-context partial quotes. And I am certainly not going to expend my time recreating my own words. Play by the rules if you want me to play your game.

JimboBear 3 months, 1 week ago

You are quite right Dave. I should have said that but didn't think it through before writing down my thoughts. The additional costs for the foster parenting would be very well spent if it served to take the kids out of that drug/alcohol dependent environment. Thanks for correcting me.

davebugg 3 months, 1 week ago

I apologize, Jim; I didn't mean for my posting to be taken as a correction by any means. I just wanted to do an 'add-on' to the direction your post had rightly taken. :-)

maxpress 3 months, 1 week ago

Since pot is now legal is it still considered an offensible drug?

davebugg 3 months, 1 week ago

No, which is but one weakness among many for the arguments against the testing for illegal drugs in recipients of direct public assistance for sole support. Alcohol and pot should not be tested for.

lonedog3 3 months, 1 week ago

and why should alcohol and pot be excluded? Many employers will still test for those two legal or not. It becomes a safety issue on most jobs. If the working taxpayers are being tested for those two drugs than those accepting tax money in the form of welfare should also be tested.

Dudleydoright 3 months ago

Yup, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance and more simply allows those who smoke, drink and use drugs to continue doing so, pull the plug on all the programs and get them to move back home and start going to church where that help is available WITH STRINGS ATTACHED.

Norm 3 months ago

"Yup, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance and more simply allows those who smoke, drink and use drugs to continue doing so, pull the plug on all the programs and get them to move back home and start going to church where that help is available WITH STRINGS ATTACHED."

What sort of churches are you referring to here? Certainly not Christian churches. Jesus would never condone threatening to withhold basic survival needs from the hungry, the cold, and the sick to coerce compliance.

And if truly Christian churches and those who fancy themselves Christians chose to help all those who need such basic survival needs, then none would qualify for need-based assistance. If that's (church assistance)your solution to the problem of hunger, then by all means, please begin implementing it. To the extent that you begin meeting these needs, people will no longer require public assistance.

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/badcatholic/files/2012/09/pope.jpeg

Dudleydoright 3 months ago

Norm, Norm, Norm....We are not talking about basic survival are we? Do you really feel society should provide for the "needy" who waste all their living on wine, women and song? What truly loving parent funds a childs addictions? Tough love is what these people need and if they have money for wine, cigarettes, pot and worse are they really needy? Liberalism run rampant has created a nation of lazy welfare junkies and Obama is selling it hook, line and sinker to well meaning suckers like you.

Norm 3 months ago

"We are not talking about basic survival are we? Do you really feel society should provide for the "needy" who waste all their living on wine, women and song?"

Yes, we were talking about basic survival needs until I asked you some questions that you were too uncomfortable to answer. Unless of course you meant that the help available at churches consists of "wine, women, and song."

"What truly loving parent funds a childs addictions?"

And now you're changing the subject again - nobody in this thread has said anything about testing the children of those who need assistance meeting survival needs. Unless of course you are using the word "children" metaphorically to indicate that poor people are "children" and society is their "parent".

"Tough love is what these people need"

Yes, "tough love" for the poor and socialism for the rich. You live in an upside down world.

"Liberalism run rampant has created a nation of lazy welfare junkies"

Liberalism "run rampant" created the American Middle Class and made America the economic powerhouse of the world. It is only when we abandoned liberal economic policy and adopted Reaganism that the American Middle Class began to go extinct and our country slid into economic decline marked by cyclical financial crashes where the rich gamblers get bailed out by everybody else (no "tough love" for them - just more free goodies from everybody else), while the poor get less and less of the wealth their increasing productivity creates.

"and Obama is selling it hook, line and sinker to well meaning suckers like you"

Look in the mirror. You are the one who has bought into corporate media propaganda that has convinced you that people who work for a living should recieve sub-survival wages and pay a higher rate of taxes while those who gamble for a living should receive more and more, pay lower and lower taxes, and get bailed out every time they draw a losing hand.

antzrus 3 months ago

The use of alcohol and/or drugs (now cannabis is legal) is pandemic among folks who get assistance here in Chelan county. Pre chemical/drug severe clinical depressions also run concurrent with these folks and they are not the euphoric, happy go lucky freeloaders so many envision.

The issue I believe involves the bottom line; $$$. Alcohol and drug treatment is very expensive. The state can't afford all who need treatment. If you pull the assistance $$$ plug ($190 a month if they even can get it) we'll have these sick folks acting out more unlawfully than now in their quest to self medicate their mental illnesses and end up taking up more jail beds at about $1000 a month than the $190 and free medical care we allow them to stay under better control in the outside world.

Granted it's really not in their nor the state's better health related interest to operate like this. But again, this is just my perception, what is the bankrupt state w/funding for assistance and/or drug and alcohol treatment always being cut to do to keep these sick unwanted souls out of the free room and board prison system?

timbim2000 3 months ago

Testing may be in order , for everyone taking government money not just welfare recipients !!!!!

lonedog3 3 months ago

they should also add that you no longer have a credit status until your off of government assistance. no new cars, no satellite tv at $100 a month, no top of the line I-phones. Take a drive by the "low income" housing and see all the nice new cars in the lots.

antzrus 3 months ago

Guys, for the past 15 years I've seen DSHS folks one to two or more a day. They are all mentally ill, mostly depressed and most are self medicating w/the wrong stuff (i.e. alcohol and/or cannabis and/or meth et al.). Living out of cars, under bridges, couch surfing, on the banks of the river etc., etc.

New cars, $100 satellite TV antennas etc, etc.? You've got your realities mixed up. The above folks can barely (too often miss their appointments to get the aid) function, much less keep up a payment for any of the above.

"Low income?" What category would you call $190.00 a month?

Taxguru 3 months ago

" It is only when we abandoned liberal economic policy and adopted Reaganism that the American Middle Class began to go extinct "

Hilarious..!!!

This from the guy who knows nothing about Economics and Financial matters. One only has to look at the failed Obama policies to see how Liberalism fails everyone everytime. The largest decrease in Median wages ever has occurred since the last Recession. Obama and Liberalism have failed big time...!!!

Norm 3 months ago

As usual, you have addressed none of my points and your post consists of nothing more than calling me names. Good job.

Taxguru 3 months ago

I know, I actually gave out facts and not a two bit opinion backed up by nada.....

milo 3 months ago

Here is an excellent example of "...a two bit opinion backed up by nada"

"The largest decrease in Median wages ever has occurred since the last Recession. Obama and Liberalism have failed big time...!!!"

Dudleydoright 3 months ago

Who knows what Norm has ever done. Now he is going to be another blood sucking leach on societies engines, just what the USA needs, another lawyer. Typical Norm, you changed the arguement to suit your point. Let's get back to the issue, they can afford weed, alcohol, cigarettes but need society to provide then with food?!

Dudleydoright 3 months ago

I believe that was it not for the big stick of the USA keeping the worlds bad guys at bay the social european welfare state would have died years ago. I think we need to tell Germany, Japan and every other state (South Korea) whos economies are huge compared to their neighbors to start funding their own national defense or reimburse us for the cost of providing it for them. It doesn't look like anyone can afford the social welfare state but with our defense cost it becomes as plain as the nose on your face.

Bill would add potential drug test for welfare

Comments

Sign in to comment

MORE LIKE THIS

UPCOMING EVENTS