From: carolo@cse.ucsc.edu (Carol Osterbrock)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:00:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
NNTP-Posting-Host: arapaho.ucsc.edu

In article <92206.093638JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) writes:
>carolo@cse.ucsc.edu (Carol Osterbrock) says:
>>In article <92205.193651JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> Jenni Sheehey
>><JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

[...]

>I'd personally rather it were used for drug treatment and prevention
>than drug use, but hey, maybe I'm just a fascist.

No, I think you are confusing testing with treatment and prevention.
Most states already have treatment and prevention programs.

[...]

>It is not *illegal* to belong to, say, the communist party.  It *is*
>illegal to take, well, illegal drugs.

Well, it's illegal to do a lot of things.  Maybe they should set up
a program where public aid recipients are randomly subjected to lie
detector tests, where they just go through the whole penal code to
make sure they haven't broken any laws in the last couple of weeks.

>>I think John Q. Public already has his opinion, and this sounds like
>>the state trying to jump on the currently popular bandwagon.
>
>Actually, if the bill were passed, PA would be the first state to have
>such a law.

Actually, there are several private companies that already have such
a policy, although it isn't really catching on, since it is very 
expensive, doesn't seem to catch many people, and gets a lot of the
employees pissed off, especially the ones who don't have anything to
hide and think they shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of peeing
in a bottle whenever the higher-ups feel like making them.

>I'm not a college student, so this wouldn't be applicable.

Do I have to figure out what you are, before you would care?  OK,
how about if they get state employees?

>Well, if it were a similar bill, she'd just be in a treatment program,
>unless the drugs were more important to her than her education, in which
>case she has no business being in a university in the first place.

Um, as I understood what you said, if you tested positive for any kind
of drugs, you could either go to a treatment program or drop out.
Testing positive doesn't even mean you've ever taken any illegal
drugs.  There are plenty of medications that give a positive test
for all sorts of horrible things.  Even if you have, say you smoked
a joint at a party, and then tested positive, throwing you in to a
treatment program is not going to solve the worlds drug problems.
In fact, treatment programs have a very high rate of recidivism, even
when they are completely voluntary.

[...]

>First of all, nobody's sending anyone to prison.  They're merely giving
>them a choice: enroll in drug treatment, or stop receiving handouts.

This is true.  I was being dramatic.  Drug treatment programs are not
all that big a step up from prison, though, in terms of how they
affect your future employability.

>This program doesn't even effect people on unemployment or people who
>only receive food stamps.  Second, there is a difference between being
>*willing* to take a drug test, and having an orgasm over the prospect.
>I wouldn't *like* it, but I would be happy to do it if it meant that a)
>people with problems would be forced to get treatment, and b) I would
>know that I wasn't eating on $5 a week to finance someone else's drug
>habit (which I don't happen to be quite doing now, but I have done it
>for considerable periods of time since I started supporting myself
>after college in 1990).

Um, if you were supporting someone with a drug habit, you should know
that there is a big difference between people with problems and people
who occasionally take drugs.  Random testing doesn't discriminate,
and people with serious habits generally know ways to fool the test.

>Peeve: People who think that people have a *right* to indulge in illegal
>activities.  You have a right to try to change the law.  You don't have a
>right to disobey it.  If you can get away with it, fine, but don't get
>all huffy if you get caught.

Well, you caught me.  I *am* trying to change the law.  I think that
most of the drug laws in this country are unrealistic at best, and
some of them are downright ridiculous.  And I get peeved at people
who think they have a right to indulge in illegal activities, too.
Let's see, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ollie North, shall I go on?

>Peeve: People who think people have a *right* to live on welfare their
>whole lives.

Who thinks that?  The only people I've known that have had to live
on welfare sure didn't like it very much.  I wouldn't wish that on
anybody.

>ObHoney: Honey, you better not be one of those militant anti-smokers,
>too.  That would just be too inconsistent.

Hey, smoke 'em if you got 'em, honey!  I'm glad to hear you're not
opposed to *all* the little pleasures of the world.

peace,
-carol
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Carol Osterbrock       *       Such a long, long time to be gone
carolo@cse.ucsc.edu    *         And a short time to be there...
===============================================================================