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
US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

Federally funded and governed US welfare began in the 1930's during the Great Depression. The US government responded to the overwhelming number of families and individuals in need of aid by creating a welfare program that would give assistance to those who had little or no income.

The US welfare system stayed in the hands of the federal government for the next sixty-one years. Many Americans were unhappy with the welfare system, claiming that individuals were abusing the welfare program by not applying for jobs, having more children just to get more aid, and staying unmarried so as to qualify for greater benefits.

Welfare system reform became a hot topic in the1990's. Bill Clinton was elected as President with the intention of reforming the federally run US Welfare program. In 1996 the Republican Congress passed a reform law signed by President Clinton that gave the control of the welfare system back to the states.


Eligibility Requirements for State Welfare Program

Eligibility for a Welfare program depends on numerous factors. Eligibility is determined using gross and net income, size of the family, and any crisis situation such as medical emergencies, pregnancy, homelessness or unemployment. A case worker is assigned to those applying for aid. They will gather all the necessary information to determine the amount and type of benefits that an individual is eligible for.

The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits.

Types of Welfare Available

The type and amount of aid available to individuals and dependent children varies from state to state. When the Federal Government gave control back to the states there was no longer one source and one set of requirements. Most states offer basic aid such as health care, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens
 
I advocate drug testing for welfare recipients...

i really don't care if it s a government or private company testing them. No conflict.

A private company? You mean a government contract due to a government policy.

Don't play games with me.
 
I advocate drug testing for welfare recipients...

i really don't care if it s a government or private company testing them. No conflict.

A private company? You mean a government contract due to a government policy.

Don't play games with me.


A private company. Lots of them out there....even ones that come to your workplace to test. As i said...i really don't care who is doing the testing.

Again, if they dont want the free money they are more then welcome to turn it down and not test.
 
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 for urinalysis.

Think of all the government workers we can hire to test your pee.

The ones you need to worry about are those caught trying to smuggle it out of the "center of pee control".

I forgot to say, "I think this thread is golden".
 
I advocate drug testing for welfare recipients...

i really don't care if it s a government or private company testing them. No conflict.

A private company? You mean a government contract due to a government policy.

Don't play games with me.


A private company. Lots of them out there....even ones that come to your workplace to test. As i said...i really don't care who is doing the testing.

Again, if they dont want the free money they are more then welcome to turn it down and not test.

Are you going to drug test the "private" companies who receive public assistance to drug test low income people?

No, you will not since you are a hack.

Seriously, just stay away from me. You are dirty.
 
Last edited:
A private company? You mean a government contract due to a government policy.

Don't play games with me.


A private company. Lots of them out there....even ones that come to your workplace to test. As i said...i really don't care who is doing the testing.

Again, if they dont want the free money they are more then welcome to turn it down and not test.

Are you going to drug test the "private" companies who receive public assistance to drug test low income people?

No, you will not since you are a hack.

Seriously, just stay away from me. You are dirty.


When you work for a drug testing company, you must submit to drug testing to be hired.

Again you want a government check....any check... then you should be tested for drugs. That includes our president. If he wants the job...pee in the cup. Though i would prefer blood.
 
Last edited:
A private company. Lots of them out there....even ones that come to your workplace to test. As i said...i really don't care who is doing the testing.

Again, if they dont want the free money they are more then welcome to turn it down and not test.

Are you going to drug test the "private" companies who receive public assistance to drug test low income people?

No, you will not since you are a hack.

Seriously, just stay away from me. You are dirty.


When you work for a drug testing company, you must submit to drug testing to be hired.

Again you want a government check....any check... then you should be tested for drugs. That includes our president. If he wants the job...pee in the cup. Though i would prefer blood.

Why do you love government? It is obvious that you are a statist. Please explain yourself why more government involvement brings more liberty.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is that MY money should NOT be used to support a drug or alcohol or for that matter a smoking habit.

welfare recipients want to do that shit....they can damn well get a fucking job and pay for it themselves Then it would be no ones business what they do with the money they earn.

What about junk food? Could they buy junk food? Or condoms? If you're Catholic I'm sure you'd hate that. Also, what about foreign oil? Or any foreign good? I mean really, at what point would you draw the line and allow them to actually decide for themselves?

Also, how does that fit into "limited government" ?

Look, I agree that I don't think someone on government assistance should be using it to buy junk food or cigarettes, but, logically, I know that even if they do, it's still benefiting the economy, and that's what we want! We don't want a ton of people in this country with ZERO purchasing power. That's not good regardless of whether they are drug free or not.


Spoken like a true pelosi follower. Benefiting the economy? Is that really the goal to put as many people on the dole so that the government can up the economy? :cuckoo: You would have people dependent on the government rather then themselves? Sorry that is positive reinforcement of very bad behavior. Trust me i understand the dynamic of what you are talking about .... but it is not the solution to the problem. It is the preparation of the problem.

There are many threads about limiting what food welfare recipients can buy. I am all for taking any and all junk off the table on.

I am for totaly limiting what it is they can and cant purchase. After all it is a voluntary program that you apply for. It is up to the individual to ask for the assistance. If you dont want what is offered...they are more then welcome to walk away from the assistance. It has nothing to do with limiting what they can decide for themselves...they are more then welcome to work..earn money and buy what ever it is they want.


Again... you want Free money.... drug test for it.

Thanks for focus on the topic.

I once read a letter to the editor from a guy who not only wanted to drug test those receiving government assistance, but the women would agree to temporary or permanent sterilization so that they wouldn't just keep having kids to increase their check, they would lose their benefits if they got body piercings or tattoos, and instead of money for food, they would be issued vouchers for 50 lb bags of rice and beans. His theory was that those who wanted to do drugs or reproduce or get tats and piercings or wanted steak instead of beans could get a job. Otherwise they would be given enough to keep a roof over their head and food on the table but they couldn't expect any luxuries on the taxpayer's dime.

Humiliating? He didn't see it that way. He remembered that it wasn't that long ago that people felt low self esteem when they took stuff they didn't work for.

We need to re-establish personal pride of the kind that people are empowered and fulfilled when they accomplish for themselves and they don't see it as their right to have other people support them.

A moral society takes care of the truly helpless and offers a hand up to those who need it. It does not make dependents of people or create generations that grow up thinking it is their right for others to take care of them.
 
Are you going to drug test the "private" companies who receive public assistance to drug test low income people?

No, you will not since you are a hack.

Seriously, just stay away from me. You are dirty.


When you work for a drug testing company, you must submit to drug testing to be hired.

Again you want a government check....any check... then you should be tested for drugs. That includes our president. If he wants the job...pee in the cup. Though i would prefer blood.

Why do you love government? It is obvious that you are a statist. Please explain yourself why more government involvement brings more liberty.


For someone who just said you wanted me to stay away from you...you sure do seem to come back for more.


I love not paying taxes. The more people on the dole...the more my taxes go up. The more restrictive entitlement programs are...the better for me as far as i am concerned. I would be very happy if everyone on welfare had to have a drug test every month...before a check was cut or that nice little credit card was loaded.

Do try and stay on topic. The topic is drug testing welfare recipients.
 
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.

Yes, this certainly is a product of overreaching big government conservatives.

I think it is Anti-American but if we are going to do this we should also make people that get a mortgage deduction submit to random drug testing.
 
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!

Sevice men and women have to pass it on a regualar basis. At least once a year. My personal record was 5 in a year [damn that got old].

If I didn't take or failed the test, my career in the military would have been over and I could possibly get a dishonorable discharge or a misconduct [norm was a general after brig time]

so there is no legal or moral basis for not to demand, and I do mean demand, that people on welfare pass the piss test.

But here's the rub; In most states, adults have an upper limit of time they can be on welfare. BUT children are on it from birth - 18. The mothers simply get to use that money to care form them. so by sticking it to the mother, as we should, we are actually sticking it to the kids.

So we should grandfather this in, so that the adults know ahead of time not to do drugs or else THEY are the sole reason thier kids are worse off.
 
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!

Sevice men and women have to pass it on a regualar basis. At least once a year. My personal record was 5 in a year [damn that got old].

If I didn't take or failed the test, my career in the military would have been over and I could possibly get a dishonorable discharge or a misconduct [norm was a general after brig time]

so there is no legal or moral basis for not to demand, and I do mean demand, that people on welfare pass the piss test.

But here's the rub; In most states, adults have an upper limit of time they can be on welfare. BUT children are on it from birth - 18. The mothers simply get to use that money to care form them. so by sticking it to the mother, as we should, we are actually sticking it to the kids.

So we should grandfather this in, so that the adults know ahead of time not to do drugs or else THEY are the sole reason thier kids are worse off.


:clap2:
 
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!

Sevice men and women have to pass it on a regualar basis. At least once a year. My personal record was 5 in a year [damn that got old].

If I didn't take or failed the test, my career in the military would have been over and I could possibly get a dishonorable discharge or a misconduct [norm was a general after brig time]

so there is no legal or moral basis for not to demand, and I do mean demand, that people on welfare pass the piss test.

But here's the rub; In most states, adults have an upper limit of time they can be on welfare. BUT children are on it from birth - 18. The mothers simply get to use that money to care form them. so by sticking it to the mother, as we should, we are actually sticking it to the kids.

So we should grandfather this in, so that the adults know ahead of time not to do drugs or else THEY are the sole reason thier kids are worse off.


:clap2:

:disagree:






:lol:






:thanks:
 
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.
 
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!

Sevice men and women have to pass it on a regualar basis. At least once a year. My personal record was 5 in a year [damn that got old].

If I didn't take or failed the test, my career in the military would have been over and I could possibly get a dishonorable discharge or a misconduct [norm was a general after brig time]

so there is no legal or moral basis for not to demand, and I do mean demand, that people on welfare pass the piss test.

But here's the rub; In most states, adults have an upper limit of time they can be on welfare. BUT children are on it from birth - 18. The mothers simply get to use that money to care form them. so by sticking it to the mother, as we should, we are actually sticking it to the kids.

So we should grandfather this in, so that the adults know ahead of time not to do drugs or else THEY are the sole reason thier kids are worse off.

I get very hard nosed when it comes to the kids. Kids should grow up watching their parents be responsible, getting up in the morning, preparing a decent breakfast, going to work and bringing home a paycheck that buys the groceries, sneakers, school supplies, and paid the rent. They are automatically artificially handicapped if they grow up seeing their parent sitting on his/her butt drinking beer, doing dope, watching soaps, and getting paid a government check to do it.

We would have to ease into it to be fair to those we've already made dependent on the government dole, but I would like to see the feds get out of it altogether. And then I would like to see the states go back to the policies of a few decades or so ago when parents were expected to feed, clothe, house, and educate their kids. Those who did not could expect their kids to be taken away until the parents were able and willing to be responsible for them.

I don't have a problem giving short term assistance to those who are in a temporary bind and need some help. But even those should be willing to do community service in return for a government check. At least the children would see Mom or Dad working for what they get and leqrn that working for what you get is what being an adult is all about.

As a society of course we will take care of the truly helpless among us. But otherwise we do no kindness to people, and a terrible injustice to their children, when we make it easy for them to be irresponsible or take advantage of a benevolent system.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top