Drug testing Welfare recipients

90 posts / 0 new

Why does the left hate this idea so much? If I have to get drug tested to get the job that generates the tax revenue to pay for the program shouldn't the recipients need ot be drug tested to before they receive it?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Comments

No one wanna touch this?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

1) it has already been discussed

2) The results so far show a rate of use much lower than the general population under 2 percent as opposed to 6 to 8 percent as a general population which means to get an average of 6 % somebody in the higher end fo the income spectrum has to be using alot more.

3) the poor welfare reciept get less money out of the government budget than corporations or the people who create this crappy legisation

4) No one is looking in to the connections between drug testing companies and the current governor of Florida.

Can we skip the routine Right Wing Bullshit about the poor having it to too goog in this country with air conditions, omitting the fact that over 100 people died in Chicago during heat wave, two years ago. Also if the poor have it too good, why are the rich complaining about paying a few pennies out of a dollar.

You can also skip all the other figments of the right, having dealth with people who are living through hard times, no one wants or works to be poor. You get rich or have a pleasant life dealing with our social safety net.

Before I hear any of that bullshit, come ride with me for a week in the mountain communities of TN, GA, VA, or WV and meet and talk with the people. Also tryi living on $3 a day.

So that is why Mr. College Conservative - No one has committed. PS I will not respond to any response that looks like copied out of Faux so called news

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 11:01 am

Im not quoting fox im asking a seious question why is it that for my job im about to start I was forced by government regulations to get a drug test as a condition to my employment but the person received money out of my taxes does not? Welfare is not a right why cant we put further restrictions on who can get it and how they use it. When you accept government money you accept government rules.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

If it was their money no one would Care what they did qe ith their money. However we the tax payer is paying for their life so we have a say in it.. Since we are not willing to pay for their drugs that is our choice to drug test them.

Posted from phone while drinking vodka.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

A whole helluva lot of different people and organizations receive our tax money. Nobody is asking the drug company ceo's or the oil company ceo's to get drug tested. Nobody is asking the persons responsible for "company A's" subsidized contributions from the tax payer to take a drug test. Nope, just the poor are being targeted for drug testing.

That's why any fair minded and moral person should hate the idea. It's a direct pile on of humiliation and quite frankly it's getting really old. You guys are always screaming about fairness when it comes to paying taxes but anything negatively targeted at poor people and you all jump on the bandwagon.

By the way. There are millions of people in the United States who do not need to get a drug test in order to get a job. Just because you have to don't try to make it look like all taxpayers need to drug test in order to get a job. I don't think that too many welfare recipients are going to be driving heavy equipment or whatever it is that requires you to drug test. I've had to do it several times in my life and it's never bothered me any.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

1 most corporate jobs now require drug tests. 2 Most of those "subsidizes" actually aren't subsidizes they are just tax breaks allowing them to keep more of their money they dont actually get any money from the tax payer.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

I have to take four or five drug tests a year to keep my job. I pay taxex why cant we make sure people who live at our expense are not wasting the money on drugs. If they have enough money to buy drugs they do not need miney from the tax payer.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

No one wanna touch this?

let me add to the other things that the other poster said that you ignored.

For one thing, the error rate in drug testing is higher than the estimated size of the population doing drugs. The result is you are going to waste money on a lot of false positives.

For another thing, you seem to be wanting to exclude people who are lazy drug abusers who take advantage of the system. That's fine, only there are also other people with substance abuse disorders who you should not cut off. And on the other side are people who use recreational drugs without it affecting their work - as many others not on welfare do.

Cutting off people on welfare with serious drug abuse problems is a horrible idea. They need medical help - which our country does not really provide to help people in those situations.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Im sorry but if you do this to yourself you can get out of it your self personal responsibility.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

No you are not asking a serious question you and working man are just parroting CRAP from the right. Do a search on Drug Testing and there are 75 ( that is all you fingers 7.5 times) different threads on drug testing and WHY IT DOESN"T ACCOMPLISH ANY THING BUT MAKE DRUG TESTING COMPANIES RICHER. As pointed out the error rate, and the results of the testing show a LOWER RATE In this population than others in the US.

Workingman if you have to submit to drug tests blame the fact that you don't have a Union unless you are in a security or working with heavy machinary where it makes sense. PS Unions do support drug testing in these situations.

Also no one is taking up my offer to come meet with these people or to live on $3 a day. You can tell them what crust of bread they do without.

CUT THE BS.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 11:01 am

Requiring drug testing to receive Government benefits seems to me like a violation of the 4th Amendment. Private companies are not constrained by the 4th Amendment. That might be why we don't like Government drug-testing while college kids have to take drug tests to have a job. What is more interesting to me is why Conservatives are so willing to bend over for their bosses getting in their business. Maybe vaginal probes, even. They'll do anything for money.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Recovering conservative2:

No you are not asking a serious question you and working man are just parroting CRAP from the right. Do a search on Drug Testing and there are 75 ( that is all you fingers 7.5 times) different threads on drug testing and WHY IT DOESN"T ACCOMPLISH ANY THING BUT MAKE DRUG TESTING COMPANIES RICHER. As pointed out the error rate, and the results of the testing show a LOWER RATE In this population than others in the US.

Workingman if you have to submit to drug tests blame the fact that you don't have a Union unless you are in a security or working with heavy machinary where it makes sense. PS Unions do support drug testing in these situations.

Also no one is taking up my offer to come meet with these people or to live on $3 a day. You can tell them what crust of bread they do without.

CUT THE BS.

The four or five drug tests per year are so i can work on union construction projects.

I have lived on three dollars a Day. You eat a lot of hotdogs And top romin noodles.

If the tax payer is paying for your life they should have a say in how it is spent. Not individually but overall. No drugs, alcohol, ciggerates, or any other recreational use should be allowed. Your ebt card is for food not gaining access to the night club.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

As a tax payer I don't want to pay for the testing. It's wasteful and silly. Just because someone gets government money doesn't mean they should be singled out and oppressed. Why do you want to intrude on individuals lives so much? The statistics show there is extremely low drug use in those who receive government money. You are just making it possible for those in the drug testing business to make more money from our tax dollars. I want my money to go to better things than the drug testing corporations.... like for food for children!

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

I do not want to intrude on their lives i just do not want to pay for their drugs. Their drug money could be given back to the tax payer, by never confiscating it in the first place.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Recovering conservative2:

No you are not asking a serious question you and working man are just parroting CRAP from the right. Do a search on Drug Testing and there are 75 ( that is all you fingers 7.5 times) different threads on drug testing and WHY IT DOESN"T ACCOMPLISH ANY THING BUT MAKE DRUG TESTING COMPANIES RICHER. As pointed out the error rate, and the results of the testing show a LOWER RATE In this population than others in the US.

Workingman if you have to submit to drug tests blame the fact that you don't have a Union unless you are in a security or working with heavy machinary where it makes sense. PS Unions do support drug testing in these situations.

Also no one is taking up my offer to come meet with these people or to live on $3 a day. You can tell them what crust of bread they do without.

CUT THE BS.

The four or five drug tests per year are so i can work on union construction projects. I have lived on three dollars a Day. You eat a lot of hotdogs And top romin noodles. If the tax payer is paying for your life they should have a say in how it is spent. Not individually but overall. No drugs, alcohol, ciggerates, or any other recreational use should be allowed. Your ebt card is for food not gaining access to the night club.

Once again you are focusing on the poor. Why aren't you demanding the same right to pick and choose how your tax dollars are spent on the military? Much more of your tax dollar goes there. It's because it's a robotic response that you've been programmed to have from the media and the other powers that be. They could have literally hundreds of media shows decidated to how to spend the money our military uses but nobody wants to go there. We've been programmed not to question military spending and whether we really need as much military presence as we have. When you focus your tax anger at the poor or personal issues then you are playing right into their game. They will keep the focus away from where most of the money is really going.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Recovering conservative2:

No you are not asking a serious question you and working man are just parroting CRAP from the right. Do a search on Drug Testing and there are 75 ( that is all you fingers 7.5 times) different threads on drug testing and WHY IT DOESN"T ACCOMPLISH ANY THING BUT MAKE DRUG TESTING COMPANIES RICHER. As pointed out the error rate, and the results of the testing show a LOWER RATE In this population than others in the US.

Workingman if you have to submit to drug tests blame the fact that you don't have a Union unless you are in a security or working with heavy machinary where it makes sense. PS Unions do support drug testing in these situations.

Also no one is taking up my offer to come meet with these people or to live on $3 a day. You can tell them what crust of bread they do without.

CUT THE BS.

The four or five drug tests per year are so i can work on union construction projects. I have lived on three dollars a Day. You eat a lot of hotdogs And top romin noodles. If the tax payer is paying for your life they should have a say in how it is spent. Not individually but overall. No drugs, alcohol, ciggerates, or any other recreational use should be allowed. Your ebt card is for food not gaining access to the night club.

Once again you are focusing on the poor. Why aren't you demanding the same right to pick and choose how your tax dollars are spent on the military? Much more of your tax dollar goes there. It's because it's a robotic response that you've been programmed to have from the media and the other powers that be. They could have literally hundreds of media shows decidated to how to spend the money our military uses but nobody wants to go there. We've been programmed not to question military spending and whether we really need as much military presence as we have. When you focus your tax anger at the poor or personal issues then you are playing right into their game. They will keep the focus away from where most of the money is really going.

Because the military is a constitutional requirement And they provide a Service to the country. What Service to the country is provided by giving poor people illegal drugs?

There are a lot of other things i do not want to pay for but this thread is about people on government doll using this money for drugs

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Again workingman come meet the people you are slamming and you will not find them at night clubs.

Please don't talk about losing freedoms if you let your boss tell you to pee in a cup on commands. So by your logic your boss since he or she provides you money can dictate how you live your life since they provide you money.

If you are eating hotdogs these days, you are spending more than 3 dollars.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 11:01 am

PLEASE READ THE CONSTITION, pleae note that the term "General Welfare" is used twice. The Constition does not say anything about Raythoen needing to paid billions or allowing Hallburten to elecute 14 service man because of improper wiring or feed them at fixed times so they become timed targets for our adversaries.

Can you say anything but RIGHT WING BULL SHIT??

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 11:01 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:

PLEASE READ THE CONSTITION, pleae note that the term "General Welfare" is used twice. The Constition does not say anything about Raythoen needing to paid billions or allowing Hallburten to elecute 14 service man because of improper wiring or feed them at fixed times so they become timed targets for our adversaries.

Can you say anything but RIGHT WING BULL SHIT??

I have Read the constitution yes it days promote the genersl welfare. Which even the framers said that this phrase fid not mesn the frderal government was able to do anything it wanted or provide you with everything.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:

Again workingman come meet the people you are slamming and you will not find them at night clubs.

Please don't talk about losing freedoms if you let your boss tell you to pee in a cup on commands. So by your logic your boss since he or she provides you money can dictate how you live your life since they provide you money.

If you are eating hotdogs these days, you are spending more than 3 dollars.

There are night clubs in jersey that have ebt card night.

The hotdogs were specail filler that I would buy to add flavor And they lasted longer than three days.

With my boss if i do not want to follow his rules i can quit And find a new job. If the federal government is doing it i have the same choice stop taking money.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

The thing is that if you test the poor for being on drugs then you can have them committed to a drug treatment program. They can't get a job nor will anyone hire them if they are addicted to drugs. If they stay addicted, they won't find work and they'll be on welfare for the rest of their lives.

Besides getting them free of addiction or locking them where as they can't do others harm does support General Welfare.

Drug addictions are rampant in Florida and Gov. Scott is trying to go after abuses in welfare that goto support such a lifestyle.

Drug addicts aren't a social group which needs speacial rights they need treatment. Drug testing them for welfare at least starts the process in the right direction.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

If that the rules you want to play by than Exxon, Halburten, etc executives, Dick Cheney and his new heart that was paid for by the tax payers need to line up and pee in the cup or be cut off.

To be fair, EVERYONE THAT RECIEVES MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE TO PEE IN THE CUP by your rules.

If night clubs in New Jersey take EBT talke to your darling of the Tea Party Cristy, you might catch walking between the NJ state Helicopter and limo during his kids baseball game while he tells people to get out do more exercise.

see Thom's post on this whole mess - http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/04/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-actually-costing-taxpayers-more-money-not

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 11:01 am

Because of the poor spelling and grammar, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Since the first issues Washington had was the Whiskey rebillion, I think the framers, had larger plans for federal government then you give them credit for. PS don't read Glenn Beck's writing about the founders try their own words.

Also to your other BS point about the military, Jefferson one of the framers was againist a standing army which you seem to defend so pleae don't be a typical Right Wing Hypocrite and pick and chose out of context points.

see Thom's post on this whole mess - http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/04/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-actually-costing-taxpayers-more-money-not

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 11:01 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:

If that the rules you want to play by than Exxon, Halburten, etc executives, Dick Cheney and his new heart that was paid for by the tax payers need to line up and pee in the cup or be cut off.

To be fair, EVERYONE THAT RECIEVES MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE TO PEE IN THE CUP by your rules.

If night clubs in New Jersey take EBT talke to your darling of the Tea Party Cristy, you might catch walking between the NJ state Helicopter and limo during his kids baseball game while he tells people to get out do more exercise.

see Thom's post on this whole mess - http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/04/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-actually-costing-taxpayers-more-money-not

i was in the military And you have to pee in a cup, most if not all of your defence contractors require drug testing. The only ones not required are welfare receipents.

Christie being fat is his problem. Him telling people to be in better shape is a joke. If anyone in government wants to tell people to be in better shape they better be in better shape then the ones being told.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:

Because of the poor spelling and grammar, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Since the first issues Washington had was the Whiskey rebillion, I think the framers, had larger plans for federal government then you give them credit for. PS don't read Glenn Beck's writing about the founders try their own words.

Also to your other BS point about the military, Jefferson one of the framers was againist a standing army which you seem to defend so pleae don't be a typical Right Wing Hypocrite and pick and chose out of context points.

see Thom's post on this whole mess - http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/04/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-actually-costing-taxpayers-more-money-not

Yes they did not want a standing army for more thsn two years. However they never wanted the federal government to pay for your health Care, illegal drugs, food, college, or anything else you think you need. They wanted you to go out And get it yourself. That is part of being free.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote antikakistocrat:

The thing is that if you test the poor for being on drugs then you can have them committed to a drug treatment program. They can't get a job nor will anyone hire them if they are addicted to drugs. If they stay addicted, they won't find work and they'll be on welfare for the rest of their lives.

Besides getting them free of addiction or locking them where as they can't do others harm does support General Welfare.

Drug addictions are rampant in Florida and Gov. Scott is trying to go after abuses in welfare that goto support such a lifestyle.

Drug addicts aren't a social group which needs speacial rights they need treatment. Drug testing them for welfare at least starts the process in the right direction.

What is the insentive for them to get off drugs? If they stay on drugs the government Will pay for their whole life with no downside.

Treatment centers should be made available but only if they pay for it themselves.

The way to cut down on those in jail is to legalize drugs, put a small tax on it to pay for the treatment centers if needed And let thr free public decide if thry want to use drugs or not

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote antikakistocrat:

The thing is that if you test the poor for being on drugs then you can have them committed to a drug treatment program. They can't get a job nor will anyone hire them if they are addicted to drugs. If they stay addicted, they won't find work and they'll be on welfare for the rest of their lives.

Besides getting them free of addiction or locking them where as they can't do others harm does support General Welfare.

Drug addictions are rampant in Florida and Gov. Scott is trying to go after abuses in welfare that goto support such a lifestyle.

Drug addicts aren't a social group which needs speacial rights they need treatment. Drug testing them for welfare at least starts the process in the right direction.

Holy crap I agree with aristocat 100%.

And his ideas cost money. More money than not testing the welfare recipients. Which is why we do it the way we do.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:

Treatment centers should be made available but only if they pay for it themselves.

The way to cut down on those in jail is to legalize drugs, put a small tax on it to pay for the treatment centers if needed

I don't understand.

Are you saying drugs should remain illegal and those persons busted should pay for their treatment?

Or are you saying that drugs should be legalized and taxed to provide necessary treatment at no charge?

I agree with the latter.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote workingman:

Treatment centers should be made available but only if they pay for it themselves.

The way to cut down on those in jail is to legalize drugs, put a small tax on it to pay for the treatment centers if needed

I don't understand.

Are you saying drugs should remain illegal and those persons busted should pay for their treatment?

Or are you saying that drugs should be legalized and taxed to provide necessary treatment at no charge?

I agree with the latter.

I am saying that they should be legal And taxed to subsidize treatment centers because if it is free people eill abuse it.. I am also saying if you are on welfare system welfare is not going to pay for your drugs or your treatment.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

None of the fat cat CEO are required nor are the reprsentatives in congress or senate so again you elect to miss the point. The people getting 100K plus from the government don't get tested.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 11:01 am

And base you comment on what are you channelling George Washington, Jefferson did want free education for everyone one. So unless you can come up with a creditable source, I still see you as full of it.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 11:01 am
Quote antikakistocrat:

The thing is that if you test the poor for being on drugs then you can have them committed to a drug treatment program. They can't get a job nor will anyone hire them if they are addicted to drugs. If they stay addicted, they won't find work and they'll be on welfare for the rest of their lives.

Besides getting them free of addiction or locking them where as they can't do others harm does support General Welfare.

Drug addictions are rampant in Florida and Gov. Scott is trying to go after abuses in welfare that goto support such a lifestyle.

Drug addicts aren't a social group which needs speacial rights they need treatment. Drug testing them for welfare at least starts the process in the right direction.

So now everyone in need of government assistance is on drugs? You'll have to show me some statistics to prove that point. A lot of these people can't afford a trip to Job Service let alone to some drug testing facility. What do you do with the kids of drug addicted parents? Now you are going to have to spend twice as much money on providing shelter for them as well. Isn't this all a huge outcropping of big government that you are all so against? Or could it be that you're all for big government when it comes to punishing the poor but keeping big government out of the hair of the rich crooks. I'll guarantee you that more costly illegal activity takes place in the world of the super rich than it does in the world of the super poor.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote workingman:

What is the insentive for them to get off drugs? If they stay on drugs the government Will pay for their whole life with no downside. Treatment centers should be made available but only if they pay for it themselves. The way to cut down on those in jail is to legalize drugs, put a small tax on it to pay for the treatment centers if needed And let the free public decide if they want to use drugs or not

No, if they stay on drugs then they either go for treatment and get off or they can go to jail. This is the whole point behind testing. Addicts are nothing but shysters and con-artists whose only goal in life is to get another hit. Locking them away and forcing them off their addiction is the only way if they won't do it voluntarily. Sometimes the state needs to deal with problemed individuals, we as Americans try to do it as Constitutionally as possible but there comes a point when the state has to step in. Just like unfit parents, sometimes the state has to step in and do the right thing when free individuals are incapeable.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

Shouldn't you have to pass a urine test to get your welfare check, since I have to pass one to earn it for you.

THISAA's picture
THISAA
Joined:
Dec. 16, 2011 6:49 am

Concerning drug testing welfare recipients because you have to take a drug test for your job.........well, as my mother used to say "two wrongs don't make a right."

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 10:41 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:

And base you comment on what are you channelling George Washington, Jefferson did want free education for everyone one. So unless you can come up with a creditable source, I still see you as full of it.

The education back than was not free.you did mot have to pay money buy you did have to work as an apprentence.

And your 3 dollars a Day food budget is crap even minimum wage pays more than that.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
And your 3 dollars a Day food budget is crap even minimum wage pays more than that.
Soooo,
I have lived on three dollars a Day.
Weren't you able to get a job?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote dhavid:

Concerning drug testing welfare recipients because you have to take a drug test for your job.........well, as my mother used to say "two wrongs don't make a right."

Why would you think of drug testing in the workplace as "wrong"?

As someone who works around large powerful, dangerous, equipment and machinery, I am GLAD my fellow co workers and those in the vicinity are drug free! Even Unions agree this is a positive thing and makes the workplace safer and results in fewer lives lost.

I can't imagine how policies that save lives could be construed as "wrong"!

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am

Companies should require regular pregnancy tests to ensure that none of their employees get morning sickness and barf all over their work.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You do realize that the 4th doesn't apply here because it is not a right but a privlage to get welfare you have to meet certain criteria why cant you make drug testing one of them? If they cant search because of the 4th then they cant deny any one welfare because of the 14th.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
You do realize that the 4th doesn't apply here because it is not a right but a privlage to get welfare you have to meet certain criteria why cant you make drug testing one of them?
Whether it is a right or a privilege is irrelevant. It's Government that wants to require the drug tests. That makes it a 4th Amendment issue. What on earth does the 14th Amendment have to do with it?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

we are all equal under the 14th then how can one citizen get a benefit I cant ?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote Calperson:
Quote dhavid:

Concerning drug testing welfare recipients because you have to take a drug test for your job.........well, as my mother used to say "two wrongs don't make a right."

Why would you think of drug testing in the workplace as "wrong"?

As someone who works around large powerful, dangerous, equipment and machinery, I am GLAD my fellow co workers and those in the vicinity are drug free! Even Unions agree this is a positive thing and makes the workplace safer and results in fewer lives lost.

I can't imagine how policies that save lives could be construed as "wrong"!

Because I prefer the America I grew up in with it's freedoms over the police state we live in now.

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 10:41 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

You do realize that the 4th doesn't apply here because it is not a right but a privlage to get welfare you have to meet certain criteria why cant you make drug testing one of them? If they cant search because of the 4th then they cant deny any one welfare because of the 14th.

Actually that's very debateable. There are many constitutional professors who would argue that general and basic welfare is a right and not a priviledge. If you are ever in need of the safety net you are eligible. I don't receive welfare because I don't need it to eat or have some kind of roof over my head. Personally I hate welfare. In a country such as ours there should be no need for welfare. As long as you have those that will take more than they need you will have those who will need more than they have.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

or those that will much of the system

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

or those that will much of the system

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote Art:
And your 3 dollars a Day food budget is crap even minimum wage pays more than that.
Soooo,
I have lived on three dollars a Day.
Weren't you able to get a job?

No when i was eating on less than three dollars a Day i was homeless this only lasted a few months before i was able to find teo full time jobs.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Drug testing is a multi-billion dollar business, the same as the prison system. To increase the revenue, laws are passed to cast an ever broader net to extract ever more money out of the economy into the security [or brownshirt] sector. FL gov Rick Scott's wife owns a drug testing facility, so she just got a sure customer base. Drug testing, military arms, and prisons are republican welfare systems. Create fear and cash in. Never mind that 4th amendmant nonsense, there is money to be made, and elections to win.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Addiction Is An Illness

If you die from starvation because you spent your welfare on drugs its YOUR OWN fault.

If you die from starvation because you couldn't get welfare, as you have a drug addiction then I'm afraid that sits heavily on MY conscious.

Also if they are spending this money,then their not out robbing,stealing, snatching your grannys handbag etc.

Theres no easy answer to deal with drug addiction but this just seems to want to take already desperate people, and make sure that desperation is cranked up to the max.

Besides all this what did it find? 3 or 4% of all people tested had positive results, rendering it more expensive to do this test than make any savings.

A bit of compassion and common sense is needed here, only a tiny fraction of welfare recipients abuse the system in one way or another.

Demonising all by heaping more humiliation on them will do more harm than good.
What will be saved in $$ ? Nothing as it costs more to test than can be taken back.
Why if its just about savings, is there no outpouring of indignation when this is as plain as the nose on your face!!

I for one do not grudge my tax helping those who need it, for without seeing the future who knows:

"There but for the grace of god go I"
as my gran used to say.

Markthomson1969.'s picture
Markthomson1969.
Joined:
May. 21, 2012 6:46 pm

Are you trying to argue that the money spent on drugs helps the us economy cause it doesn't it almost all goes back to Mexico.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system