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
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.

What evidence do you have that the program would cost more than it saves? And even if it does, if it teaches people to responsible so they are more likely to get off welfare or public assistance, why would that be a bad thing?

Why should government beneficiaries of the public dole be at any more risk than I would be when I submit to a random drug test at work?

The part in bold: I believe that was the finding made by the Court based on the evidence presented. I know the drive to punish anyone who isn't doing well financially is strong on the right, but really... do you ever stop wanting to humiliate people who go through bad times? (that's a generic 'you', not a personal 'you').

karma's a boomerang.

It's all about punishing the children, imo. They are special before they are born but they are garbage afterwards and it is their fault they were born into poverty.
 
I have serious doubts about this program reducing spending on welfare. Weed is out of the system in usually 2-4 weeks. Meth and opiates in like a week. Cocaine can be out of your system in 3 days. What about alcohol... tax payer money shouldn't be spent on booze, right? That's 48 hours. So if this is a serious attempt at getting all those bum druggies off of government assistance (an overplayed stereotype, imo, same as the black welfare queen), then we're talking about administering drugs tests twice a week to about 30 million people... sounds like BigGov to me.

Non-sense.

Habitual users use daily, so the time it takes to leave the system doesn't matter.

The regular users would be the ones that test positive. The recreational users, which I would guess are a far larger portion of an already small portion of welfare recipients, would be much harder to get a positive test from unless it was done on a frequent basis.
 
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.

What evidence do you have that the program would cost more than it saves? And even if it does, if it teaches people to responsible so they are more likely to get off welfare or public assistance, why would that be a bad thing?

Why should government beneficiaries of the public dole be at any more risk than I would be when I submit to a random drug test at work?

The part in bold: I believe that was the finding made by the Court based on the evidence presented. I know the drive to punish anyone who isn't doing well financially is strong on the right, but really... do you ever stop wanting to humiliate people who go through bad times? (that's a generic 'you', not a personal 'you').

karma's a boomerang.

For me it is not about humiliating or pushing anyone. If the money is to be used to feed and care for children..then that is exactly what i want it used for. Not drug and alcohol addiction.
 
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.

What evidence do you have that the program would cost more than it saves? And even if it does, if it teaches people to responsible so they are more likely to get off welfare or public assistance, why would that be a bad thing?

Why should government beneficiaries of the public dole be at any more risk than I would be when I submit to a random drug test at work?

The part in bold: I believe that was the finding made by the Court based on the evidence presented. I know the drive to punish anyone who isn't doing well financially is strong on the right, but really... do you ever stop wanting to humiliate people who go through bad times? (that's a generic 'you', not a personal 'you').

karma's a boomerang.

Jillian, without being Maudlin about it, I've gone through some really hard times when there was a lot more week than food; when we didn't know how we would keep the heat going in the winter or the lights on at night. I have the greatest empathy and sympathy for those experiencing hard times. And yes we had some help but it never in a million years occurred to us that we didn't owe something to those who helped or that we shouldn't repay what we owed them.

It should not be humiliating in any way to expect something of others. It should be humiliating to expect others to support you without you doing anything to earn what you get.

Your prejudiciql and rather snarky ad hominem re the right notwithstanding, my motive is not to humiliate anybody. To me it would be the most humiliating thing in the world to be treated like some helpless creature who had neither resources nor ability to better myself and who wqs at the mercy of the government. All in return for my vote of course. How much less humiliating it is to treat people with respect and dignity by acknowledging they are capable of being contributors and producers in society instead of dead weight.
 
Why do statists think that a cadre of government piss testers is a good thing?

I am still trying to wrap my head around this thinking.
 

Forum List

Back
Top