Urine or You're Out

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Foxfyre, Jun 28, 2011.

?

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

  1. Yes

    17 vote(s)
    68.0%
  2. No

    8 vote(s)
    32.0%
  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,664
    Thanks Received:
    10,777
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,356
    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!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. WillowTree
    Online

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,134
    Thanks Received:
    10,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,678
    I said yes. I see no reason for taxpayers to subsidize those who can afford drugs.
     
  3. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    47,539
    Thanks Received:
    8,775
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +23,772
    Absolutely they should.
     
  4. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,664
    Thanks Received:
    10,777
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,356
    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.
     
  5. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,906
    Thanks Received:
    5,107
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,702
    I see no problem with requiring a drug screen urine test for people on the public dole.
     
  6. Moonglow
    Offline

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    81,477
    Thanks Received:
    7,985
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +29,322
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2011
  7. DontBeStupid
    Offline

    DontBeStupid Look it up!

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,463
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Ratings:
    +422
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Antiderivative
    Offline

    Antiderivative BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,616
    Thanks Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +103
    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.
     
  9. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,664
    Thanks Received:
    10,777
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,356
    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.
     
  10. Wonky Pundit
    Offline

    Wonky Pundit USMB's Silent Snowden

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,476
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Quisitive
    Ratings:
    +89
    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.
     

Share This Page