Urine Test for Public Assistance?

[BIGUN 1,316]

Received in an email...

Quote

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck. I am required to pass a random urine
test, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them ?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check.

Should make for interesting discussion...

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[MDMA 0]

I take drugs myself, so i think "what the hell, if these people want to claim benifits and spend it on drugs, have fun!!!!!"

good luck to them if they want to get off their heads, have a good pill on me

[Zipp0 1]

Answer - In a free society any drug test should be illegal, unless a crime like DUI or similar is being investigated. I see your point though - if you have money for drugs, you have money for food/bills, but I disagree with drug testing in general.

When I joined the military they would not believe me when I told them I had never tried an illegal drug. They kept asking over and over. When I offered to take a lie detector test, they stopped with the questions.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Guest]

Makes perfect sense. I think it's a great idea.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[SpeedRacer 1]

Pee goes in the toilet.

Job performance assessments should be based on, well, job performance.

People should quit messing around with other peoples' pee.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

The basis for this argument is that the writer has to take drug tests at his job. Therefore, so should those spending his tax dollars.

But...I don't take drug tests for my money, so why should my tax dollars require said testing?

And then if we went to the merits of the idea, I suspect it's rather counterproductive. Costs a lot to test all those people, and disqualifying the drug users seems like it would only encourage them to commit more crime to feed the habit.

So where would the cost savings come from?

[jakee 1,490]

The drug test is a requirement of his employer, not a requirement of the government - he doesn't have to work for someone who requires drug tests.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[BIGUN 1,316]

Quote

Costs a lot to test all those people, and disqualifying the drug users seems like it would only encourage them to commit more crime to feed the habit.

Interesting.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[PLFXpert 0]

I LOVE that e-mail!



I received that a while back, too, and laughed my ass off!

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Job performance assessments should be based on, well, job performance.

People should quit messing around with other peoples' pee.

Perhaps for job performance...

But for welfare??? Someone on welfare shouldn't be buying weed with what they earn and then using my tax dollars at the grocery store on food & staples.

I have no issues with weed. I have no issues with people doing as they please to their body so long as it doesn't affect me. What I DO care about is weed cost money. And, for someone on welfare, it certainly isn't considered cheap. And it's a "LUXURY"!

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 2,991]

>Someone on welfare shouldn't be buying weed with what they earn
>and then using my tax dollars at the grocery store on food & staples.

Agreed. Make welfare funds eligible for basic food, clothing and housing costs only.

[skydiver30960 0]

BRING IT!

GREAT friggin' idea. As for "not messing with other peoples' pee," I'll be cool with that idea as soon as they stop messing with my money [taxes].

How to pay for it: the system pays for the welfare recipient's weekly drug testing until they test positive, then they get cut off until they're clean again, then THEY pay for the testing out of their check from that point on.

Sold. Where do I sign?

Elvisio "sounds good" rodriguez

[billvon 2,991]

>GREAT friggin' idea.

I don't think we'll be good with letting kids starve because their mother smokes pot. Or we will be good until the first few die, at which point the 'monsters' who 'starved the kids to death' will lose elections and we'll be back where we started.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't think we'll be good with letting kids starve because their mother smokes pot. Or we will be good until the first few die, at which point the 'monsters' who 'starved the kids to death' will lose elections and we'll be back where we started.

Actually, I'd think they could campaign on that idea and still do just fine. People have already dehumanized the welfare recipients.

But I still think it's besides the point. I asked, where would the cost savings be in this massive drug testing? If the point of the exercise is to prod the poor and make sure they're not having any fun, admit it. If the goal is to better use the money, there's a valid reason and if it can be proven...

San Francisco shifted 80% of the monthly welfare payments into credit for food and housing, and not surprisingly, the number of claiments dropped as a lot of freeloaders gave up. A clear gain in a city that is generally pretty stupid about the subject (see the recent south park).

[nathaniel 0]

A war on poppy seed bagels would not be just.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I don't think we'll be good with letting kids starve because their mother smokes pot. Or we will be good until the first few die, at which point the 'monsters' who 'starved the kids to death' will lose elections and we'll be back where we started.

If the mother is smoking pot, her kids probably aren't getting most of the food anyways.

I'm not understanding your point, Bill. I was half-joking, but what is it exactly you're supporting and/or defending?

I've been on a strict budget before. I had to cut out every luxury, including healthier foods which everyone knows cost more. One does what they must for "basic food, clothing & housing." If I wanted luxuries, which I did, I had to work for them. Such is life.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Royd 0]

: >GREAT friggin' idea.

Quote

I don't think we'll be good with letting kids starve because their mother smokes pot. Or we will be good until the first few die, at which point the 'monsters' who 'starved the kids to death' will lose elections and we'll be back where we started.

Maybe a warehouse that doles out beans, rice and gubmint cheeze should be set up for welfare payments. Shelter is already taken care of through HUD. What more could they need?

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

If the point of the exercise is to prod the poor and make sure they're not having any fun, admit it.

Yes, b/c "fun" means spending money. And not just spending money, but spending it on weed.

I wish Billy would post. He would go off on "fun" having to = money. I.E. It doesn't.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[SpeedRacer 1]

You guys all seem to assume that 1) little or no ADDITIONAL tax dollars will be needed to administer all those tests and 2) that nothing ever goes wrong with a drug test.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Lindsey 0]

And, for someone on welfare, it certainly isn't considered cheap. And it's a "LUXURY"!

What welfare are you referring to? Disability? Food Stamps? Housing? (In Arkansas....at least Little Rock....if a person has ever been convicted of a drug-related crime, they can NEVER get housing assistance.) Medicaid? Medicare? Unemployment benefits? WIC?

It sounds like you're talking about cash payments to people who are poor. I don't know of any programs other than disability programs that provide income to people.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

You guys all seem to assume that 1) little or no ADDITIONAL tax dollars will be needed to administer all those tests and 2) that nothing ever goes wrong with a drug test.

Not me. Again, I was laughing at the idea. I.e. "Good in theory, but...".

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

I was making a generalization.

I'm not anti-the-welfare-recipient. I remember the first time (and only time) I was in line behind a woman paying for her groceries with food stamps. I had never seen this before and didn't at first know why the cashier was checking a list and took the woman's Frosted Flakes. I quickly had an idea of why, however, and just told the cashier they looked delicious and to put them on my tab.

I didn't consider it an act of charity. I didn't think I was being a fine samaritan. From one woman to another (and she was obviously pregnant), I understand a craving. I used to love Frosted Flakes! Yes, they were a luxury--but QUITE a different one, imo, and I ELECTED to purchase them for the woman.

Quote

It sounds like you're talking about cash payments to people who are poor. I don't know of any programs other than disability programs that provide income to people.

What I was referring to was a welfare-eligible individual who spends what little money they DO have on weed instead of their "basic food, clothing, housing" and/or future to be off welfare.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 2,991]

>I'm not understanding your point, Bill. I was half-joking, but what
>is it exactly you're supporting and/or defending?

If your point is "I don't want tax money going to drugs" then institute a program where public assistance can only go to necessities like food, clothing and housing. Testing them for drugs will just encourage them to spend the money on non-detectable drugs, or on alcohol.

If your point is "I don't want poor people doing drugs" then better enforcement of drug laws is the answer there.

[PLFXpert 0]

The original post is funny (at least to me). I laughed the first time I read it and laughed again when I saw the thread title. Some guy wrote in to a newspaper, the newspaper published it, many thought it was funny, and laughed enough that someone put it in an e-mail to circulate. It circulated, not b/c it had a "send this to 10 people, or else" warning but b/c it's funny. It's not an urban legend. It's not seriously on a party platform. It's just funny.


Thus, my point was never to debate public assistance programs or drug enforcement laws. Just to laugh. It's funny for a reason. That is all.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Agreed. Make welfare funds eligible for basic food, clothing and housing costs only.