Urine or You're Out

Should people receiving government assistance have to pass a random drug test?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 68.0%
  • No

    Votes: 8 32.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 11, 2007
66,971
32,311
2,330
Desert Southwest USA
Adapted from an e-mail I received today:

TO PEE or NOT TO PEE

I think this should be a "law of the land". Guess it's probably not 'politically correct' and would be insensitive and probably fall into some definitions of racial discrimination. But let's give it a whirl anyway:

TO PEE OR NOT TO PEE.

I have a job.

I work and they pay me for the work I do.

I pay my taxes & the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test
(with which I have no problem). I don't have a problem that a urine test is also required when I apply for work comp or disability.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question:

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 don't really have a problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT--doing drugs while I work.

Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!

P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!
 
I said yes. I see no reason for taxpayers to subsidize those who can afford drugs.
 
I said yes. I see no reason for taxpayers to subsidize those who can afford drugs.

Those who follow threads I post in know that I am opposed to welfare or public assistance at the federal level anyway. But if we're going to have to have it, or at the state level too, why not insist that those receiving it help themselves and learn how to prosper? Giving up all illegal substances would be a great start for many.
 
I am all for testing those tha receive govt funds, that would include all forms of govt aid. hey, we might as well treat everyone equally. We should include tax breaks, govt employees to include the president down to the janitor. The corporations and their tax loopholes. The legislatures. Anyone running for office that gets fed matching funds, those that receive grants, fellowships, loans,etc.
Why just single out welfare receipients that get food stamps of AFDC?
But alas the Michigan supreme court ruled that testing welfare users was a violation of their right to privacy, and a bad use of govt. powers intruding on private citizens.
thank goodness we have a Bill Of rights attached to the Constitution. How else do you defend urself against azzhole tyrants that are mean spirited.

By the way, taxpayers that are conservative and advocate this idea are wanting more govt. intrusion, more govt. power over our daily lives and more govt. expendatur. I quess ur only a conservative when it suits ur need to belittle a liberal.
Oh! Welfare has requirements, you are required to get a job, traing or loose ur welfare. there is no such thing as open ended entitlements for the poor. It should make you happy to know that people will do without because you ever loving Christians have a hard heart problem. Wasn't it conservatives that killed the liberal Jesus Christs!? Why yes it was.
 
Last edited:
I certainly understand why people would want to see this, but it just doesn't sit well with me. It seems like an unlawful invasion of privacy. Not to mention the obvious costs involved with testing so many people and the fact that if they are even around marijuana it could show positive on their test.

Yeah, I don't think I could support this.
 
No. We do not need more government. Plus, druggies will just try to find ways around it.

Plus, are you really gonna go after all the millions of people who accepted assistance from Fannie and Freddie? Are you really gonna go after all the corporatists, bankers, MIC, and bureaucrats?

I deduce that you will not. You just want to go after the poor.
 
I certainly understand why people would want to see this, but it just doesn't sit well with me. It seems like an unlawful invasion of privacy. Not to mention the obvious costs involved with testing so many people and the fact that if they are even around marijuana it could show positive on their test.

Yeah, I don't think I could support this.

Since you are the only one on the opposed side so far who hasn't thrown in a lot of stupid straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings - and I profoundly thank you for that - why would it be an unlawful invasion of privacy? Nobody forces anybody to take welfare, any more than I am forced to work on a job that requires random drug testing. But if I want to work at that job I agree to the drug testing. Why shouldn't those who take welfare, without doing ANYTHING to merit it, also agree to drug testing. If they aren't willing to do that, they can look somewhere else for assistance. Or figure out how to earn what they need to get by.
 
I certainly understand why people would want to see this, but it just doesn't sit well with me. It seems like an unlawful invasion of privacy. Not to mention the obvious costs involved with testing so many people and the fact that if they are even around marijuana it could show positive on their test.

Yeah, I don't think I could support this.

Since you are the only one on the opposed side so far who hasn't thrown in a lot of stupid straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings - and I profoundly thank you for that - why would it be an unlawful invasion of privacy? Nobody forces anybody to take welfare, any more than I am forced to work on a job that requires random drug testing. But if I want to work at that job I agree to the drug testing. Why shouldn't those who take welfare, without doing ANYTHING to merit it, also agree to drug testing. If they aren't willing to do that, they can look somewhere else for assistance. Or figure out how to earn what they need to get by.

I can think of a couple of reasons:
1) the program is likely to cost more than it saves in welfare payments.
2) nobody has specified how to safeguard people against false positives.
 
I am all for testing those tha receive govt funds, that would include all forms of govt aid. hey, we might as well treat everyone equally. We should include tax breaks, govt employees to include the president down to the janitor. The corporations and their tax loopholes. The legislatures. Anyone running for office that gets fed matching funds, those that receive grants, fellowships, loans,etc.
Why just single out welfare receipients that get food stamps of AFDC?
But alas the Michigan supreme court ruled that testing welfare users was a violation of their right to privacy, and a bad use of govt. powers intruding on private citizens.
thank goodness we have a Bill Of rights attached to the Constitution. How else do you defend urself against azzhole tyrants that are mean spirited.

By the way, taxpayers that are conservative and advocate this idea are wanting more govt. intrusion, more govt. power over our daily lives and more govt. expendatur. I quess ur only a conservative when it suits ur need to belittle a liberal.
Oh! Welfare has requirements, you are required to get a job, traing or loose ur welfare. there is no such thing as open ended entitlements for the poor. It should make you happy to know that people will do without because you ever loving Christians have a hard heart problem. Wasn't it conservatives that killed the liberal Jesus Christs!? Why yes it was.

:confused:
 
Join the military, they piss test ya. do you want a military state? I do!!!
 
Are you gonna drug test Israel and other foreign governments that benefits nicely from hard working Americans?
 
No. We do not need more government. Plus, druggies will just try to find ways around it.

Plus, are you really gonna go after all the millions of people who accepted assistance from Fannie and Freddie? Are you really gonna go after all the corporatists, bankers, MIC, and bureaucrats?

I deduce that you will not. You just want to go after the poor.

I have to disagree with you. The people who are on welfare should be using their checks for the good of their family and not for drugs. If they have a drug addiction, they'll have to come clean before they get assistance from the government. It has nothing to do with those who work for a living.

I'd rather hire people to do the drug testing and lower our unemployment rate. It just may be some of those people on welfare now!

We'll just have to disagree.
 
I certainly understand why people would want to see this, but it just doesn't sit well with me. It seems like an unlawful invasion of privacy. Not to mention the obvious costs involved with testing so many people and the fact that if they are even around marijuana it could show positive on their test.

Yeah, I don't think I could support this.

Since you are the only one on the opposed side so far who hasn't thrown in a lot of stupid straw men, non sequiturs, and red herrings - and I profoundly thank you for that - why would it be an unlawful invasion of privacy? Nobody forces anybody to take welfare, any more than I am forced to work on a job that requires random drug testing. But if I want to work at that job I agree to the drug testing. Why shouldn't those who take welfare, without doing ANYTHING to merit it, also agree to drug testing. If they aren't willing to do that, they can look somewhere else for assistance. Or figure out how to earn what they need to get by.

I can think of a couple of reasons:
1) the program is likely to cost more than it saves in welfare payments.
2) nobody has specified how to safeguard people against false positives.

Thanks! Yup, these two for starters.

As for the privacy though, I think it's the exposure aspect. If a private company tests me and I fail, I get fired, but that's it. If the government tests me and I fail, well, there is now state evidence I broke the law. I not only lose my assistance, but I also face fines or jail time. Not only do I think this is too harsh, but I think it will actually serve as motivation for people to not get assistance, and instead turn to crime, which we definitely don't want. (Cause lets be honest, only a small fraction will choose giving up the drugs).

I guess, in the end, my opinion is a pot head still buys food from the local grocer and gas from the local gas station. His money flows into the economy like anyone else, so why single him out?
 
No. We do not need more government. Plus, druggies will just try to find ways around it.

Plus, are you really gonna go after all the millions of people who accepted assistance from Fannie and Freddie? Are you really gonna go after all the corporatists, bankers, MIC, and bureaucrats?

I deduce that you will not. You just want to go after the poor.

I have to disagree with you. The people who are on welfare should be using their checks for the good of their family and not for drugs. If they have a drug addiction, they'll have to come clean before they get assistance from the government. It has nothing to do with those who work for a living.

I'd rather hire people to do the drug testing and lower our unemployment rate. It just may be some of those people on welfare now!

We'll just have to disagree.

yes, I grow my own and have been self employed most of my life, welfare is not a sustainable income in any manor for me, but if we drug test one welfare receipient, then all forms of welfare should be treated in the same manner.
 
welfare is not a sustainable income in any manor for me, but if we drug test one welfare receipient, then all forms of welfare should be treated in the same manner.

By extension, are people advocating we should test every student getting a Pell Grant or a Direct Loan? After all, they are receiving government money.

:doubt:
 
I have to disagree with you. The people who are on welfare should be using their checks for the good of their family and not for drugs. If they have a drug addiction, they'll have to come clean before they get assistance from the government. It has nothing to do with those who work for a living.

I'd rather hire people to do the drug testing and lower our unemployment rate. It just may be some of those people on welfare now!

We'll just have to disagree.

I never said that people who are welfare should not be using their checks for the good of their family rather than for drugs.

Do you want to lie or have an actual conversation?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top