A little help here, please...?

[Doc Holliday]

I found myself on the receiving end of a losing argument with a radio host, simply because I was (in retrospect) woefully unprepared.

The topic was mandatory drug testing for recipients of public assistance.

I argued against it from three angles:
1) It's demonstrably not cost-effective; therefore, it's not an example of fiscally responsible behavior.
2) Unless the affected government agencies start up their own Analysis of Other People's Pee Department (which increases the size and expense to the taxpayer of the local bureaucracy) they'll have to outsource it to some private sector place that analyzes other people's pee. This will cost money, too. (See #1 above.)
3) No conservative will even admit that there's a Constitutional aspect to government-mandated drug testing. I believe that there is, a very visible one, grounded in both the letter and the spirit of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

I could sure use some nicely-crafted talking points. I don't think I represented Our Side very well. But then I've never been much of a salesman. Some good, well-structured words would be a big help, because I'd love to call this guy back and cram it down his throat. We were both winging it, but it was his bat and ball; by the time I got my shit together the call was over. Where better to get some good words than DUers?

[Brickbat]

1. Why limit it to those getting public assistance? Why not all public dollars?

Mayors, representatives, senators?

[Cleita]

2. That would make it go away instantly, like we would have single payer universal

health care the minute the Cadillac insurance disappears from our elected officials benefits packet.

[Doc Holliday]

11. Don't get me started....

I was a "Medicare For All" guy. (((shrug)))

[Shrike47]

4. And management level of all government contractors. (CEOs especially)

[Shrike47]

3. Which radio host?

[Doc Holliday]

8. His name

is Robert Pratt; he hosts one of those 3-hr. AM shows. His is called Pratt On Texas...I call it Prattle On Texas. Its theme is boilerplate wingnut radio fare-- anti-everything-Obama, anti-liberal, anti-Austin, anti-Democrat, etc., ad nauseum.

[Adam051188]

5. i wonder how many people tried to argue with hitler.

authoritarians rise in environments with in groups and out groups. in this particular example the out group is "drug users on welfare".

the authoritarian attitude is that authority is always right.

now lets get into the absolute idiocy of this moron's opinion. almost everyone in the united states is on drugs in some form. prescription mostly, sugar is classified as a drug, so is caffeine. an authoritarian will not question the validity or reasoning behind our DEA's classification of substances.

the second aspect of the argument is "why are these people on welfare". an authoritarian will believe that there is something inherently wrong with the individual due to the authoritarian's inability to grasp that all authority is imperfect.

authoritarians are extremely dangerous to the common good due to their destructive affect on the reasoning skills of their audiences.

facts and reality are irrelevant to the authoritarian. the mindless compulsion to obey and please their perceived masters is all they are capable of understanding. things like incarceration and recidivism rates are meaningless noise to them, as are all other reasonable and logical arguments questioning the way things are.

the manner in which discussion is avoided is by isolating microcosms of larger problems, coupled with overwhelming scorn and belligerence towards those who would question their values.

[cwydro]

6. Every single government official should be drug tested.

They get public dollars too. Look at how many get in trouble with drugs. That recent guy with the cocaine bust...sorry, forgot his name, but we all know there are very many who use drugs. (As does the American public lol).

Bullshit to pick on the poor folk.

[Doc Holliday]

10. Yes...as though

we're somehow giving welfare & food stamp recipients the keys to Ft. Knox.

But the host tried to argue that since there is no Constitutional right to a government handout, there cannot be any violation of the recipient's Constitutional rights.

[Oilwellian]

7. You made some very good points

and I think you entered the discussion with some knowledge about the issue. Since you had to argue against it, then I can safely assume you were talking to a right wing host? It's certainly a right wing idea and was already enacted in Florida, and that has proven only a very small percentage (from memory I want to say 1-2%) of those applying for public assistance, failed the drug test.

I have debated this issue with right wing acquaintances a few times and have found the best question to ask them is when did Republicans become Big Brother and supporters of a nanny state? Ask them why they are for bigger government and willing to add yet another cost to taxpayers with little result? No one has yet been able to answer those simple questions. You'll even be able to see a rusty wheel begin to turn in their little pea brains. LOL

[Doc Holliday]

9. The tactic of

turning the question back upon the host did not occur to me at the time. Thanks for a most useful suggestion.