I've done what I could, I've sent emails, refused to buy tickets of any kind, haven't attended any UT athletic events and refused to buy any UT merchandise. So, yes. I have.
I didn’t donate 100 million dollars. That was pretty huge of me. Next year, if things don’t get better I might not donate 200 million. Who did you send emails to?
Well we have [itch bay]ed about abuse of disability claims on here how many times? A dozen? How’s that compare to the level of [itch bay]ing about UT sports?
There is a difference between having the ability to do something, and not doing it, and having no ability. I’m willing to do what I need to do to fix the UTAD, that is within my power to do so. So, like being told to report, I’m willing to be told what to do. What do I need to do?
Well, according to NYY, your options appear to be file a meaningless report or complain on the internet.
We don't trust the government to not waste money on entitlement recipients, but we do trust the government to not waste even more money on drug testing entitlement recipients despite ample evidence that these programs waste a shit ton of money?
I want to be clear. In theory I have no issue with drug testing welfare recipients just like damn near everyone has to pass a drug test to get a job. That said, I would rather waste 100 of my tax dollars and let some people slip through the cracks than waste 110 of my tax dollars and let a few less people slip through the cracks
So the people who are giving their money to the recipients get drug tested and that is okay but it is bad to test the recipient. Something does not seem right about that.
I understand your logic. I also see drugs as major hindrance towards getting back on their feet. I am not for using it as punitive without a 3 strikes type rule after treatment.
Do you know of any government assistance for someone who tests positive for drugs? I think they're just dropped.
Do you mean do they, or should they? I see addiction as in the realm of mental and physical health. I and do think the government should be playing a much larger role in that arena. Not doing so has allowed some of these issues to metastacize
I'm all for drug testing, but I don't think our government can do it without it being a gigantic cluster[uck fay]
Govt officials should be tested for opiates, Xanax, etc. Someone maybe on antidepressant/Xanax/Percocet telling others not to smoke weed has always been amusing.
If testing is mandated, and someone fails the test, does government have a duty to help that person? Because now you $100 per person is $250, for the benefits, the testing, and then the treatment.
No; and there is also no duty to provide assistance. Seems cheaper in the long run to give a little more assistance up front to get them being a productive member of society over generational assistance. I would be interested seeing what the ROI is, if anything.