If you are in favor of giving the right of the government to drug test, why are you opposed to this?
Lestat - 01:03pm on 03/16/2008
The difference here is that the drug testing that Rob agreed with was only performed on an individual if they applied for a job. This is not any different from what a majority of employers already do to keep a safe and productive work environment for its employees.
This story is completely different. Can the children chose not to be part of the database like the adult can by not applying for the job. The obvious answer is no.
dougee - 01:03pm on 03/16/2008
Poor communities are a statistically high source of crime. Would the British (or American) liberals support forcing poor people to register in a DNA database?
Hairy Polemic - 01:03pm on 03/16/2008
Hairy, I think we all know the answer to that question!
dougee - 02:03pm on 03/16/2008
If you are in favor of giving the right of the government to drug test, why are you opposed to this?
Because this isn’t optional. I think the government, both as an employer and as a distributor of our tax dollars in the form of entitlements, should be able to drug test in employment/entitlement situations because those situations are optional.
Certainly the government should be able to screen job applicants to weed out people whose substance abuse problems may impact their job performance. And if someone applying for welfare because they cannot support themselves and/or their families shouldn’t get money if they have enough money for drugs.
You’re comparing apples to skyscrapers here.
Poor communities are a statistically high source of crime. Would the British (or American) liberals support forcing poor people to register in a DNA database?
You hit the nail on the head. I have a hard time believing that genetics play a greater role in motivating crime than things like economic situation, parenting, etc.
If you are in favor of giving the right of the government to drug test, why are you opposed to this?
The difference here is that the drug testing that Rob agreed with was only performed on an individual if they applied for a job. This is not any different from what a majority of employers already do to keep a safe and productive work environment for its employees.
This story is completely different. Can the children chose not to be part of the database like the adult can by not applying for the job. The obvious answer is no.
Poor communities are a statistically high source of crime. Would the British (or American) liberals support forcing poor people to register in a DNA database?
Hairy, I think we all know the answer to that question!
Because this isn’t optional. I think the government, both as an employer and as a distributor of our tax dollars in the form of entitlements, should be able to drug test in employment/entitlement situations because those situations are optional.
Certainly the government should be able to screen job applicants to weed out people whose substance abuse problems may impact their job performance. And if someone applying for welfare because they cannot support themselves and/or their families shouldn’t get money if they have enough money for drugs.
You’re comparing apples to skyscrapers here.
You hit the nail on the head. I have a hard time believing that genetics play a greater role in motivating crime than things like economic situation, parenting, etc.