Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:46:38 EDT
From: Jenni Sheehey <JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare

carolo@cse.ucsc.edu (Carol Osterbrock) says:
>In article <92205.193651JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> Jenni Sheehey
><JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>The reason I say this is that if these people are buying drugs, they're
>>doing it with *my* money.
>
>Ummm, whose money is the state going to use to do this drug testing?

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

>Well, it astounds me that it should be legal to have employers for
>whom one is working be allowed to test you, too.  Not so long ago,
>it was legal to have them make you sign a statement that you'd never
>belonged to a political party that they didn't like, but those wackos
>from the ACLU got all uptight about that, so they had to stop.

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

>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.

>>I'm not even receiving welfare, but if they want
>>to test me first, they're welcome to.  I've never been quite sure what
>>the big deal was, anyway, assuming one has nothing to hide.
>
>Well, heck, kiddo, I'm sure they'll hit college students next.  Lord
>knows it was *your* money that built all those buildings.  You can
>walk proudly into the testing center with your sleeve rolled up,
>knowing that you are *clean*.

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

>You can gossip with your friends about
>the girl down the hall that got kicked out last week because she got
>stoned with her boyfriend a week before they hauled her in.

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.

>You can
>sweat a little because you had a couple of beers after the killer
>midterm.  You can proudly pay your taxes to build the new prisons that
>have become necessary to keep all those heinous criminals from
>leaching off society.  Maybe you can even have the ultimate honor of
>turning in one of your friends!

That was a wonderful stream of sarcasm, however, there were a couple of
problems with it.

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 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).

>Peeve:  people whose high school history class ended in 1945.

Well, it could have ended in 1985, with the same result, no?

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.

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

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

                                                 --Jenni