Merge wrote:I'm all for helping people that help themselves. Welfare was never meant to be a career opportunity. It might be heartless, but a person can't keep sucking off the system like a parasite in the name of "compassion". And if taking someone's child away because they can't/won't take care of them, so be it. The child shouldn't suffer because Dad won't get clean.
And I'm not mad at anything.
Agreed.
I hate the fraud too and corruption and excessive taxation etc.
I simply ask how will drug testing solve the above to any significant degree?
Should alcohol testing too?
Should tax dollars be spent rehabbing drug addicted people and alcoholics; and should we feed and house them while we're doing it?
Merge wrote:I'm all for helping people that help themselves. Welfare was never meant to be a career opportunity. It might be heartless, but a person can't keep sucking off the system like a parasite in the name of "compassion". And if taking someone's child away because they can't/won't take care of them, so be it. The child shouldn't suffer because Dad won't get clean.
And I'm not mad at anything.
Agreed.
I hate the fraud too and corruption and excessive taxation etc.
I simply ask how will drug testing solve the above to any significant degree?
Should alcohol testing too?
Should tax dollars be spent rehabbing drug addicted people and alcoholics; and should we feed and house them while we're doing it?
Do you smoke?
I think a person is more likely to work on getting clean if they know they'll be cut off if they test positive. I'm not sure about alcohol testing, that's a tough one. Just about everyone I know drinks at least a little. I think a reasonable solution might be that if someone needs rehab for alcohol/drugs, and tax money is used to pay for it, they should be provide some community service while receiving the treatment. They don't need to do hard labor, anything to help the community is better than nothing. I think job placement/assistance would be beneficial, also.
I don't drink or smoke, I never have.
Pour me another one, cause I'll never find the silver lining in this cloud.
Back to the original argument. Florida spent a quarter of a million in drug tests, only to find 2% tested positive. Is it worth it? Why isn't anyone who lives off of taxpayers money tested? I know that at least 2 of Bedford's high ranking officials use drugs.
The really ironic thing is that, how many people on welfare/disability go to the "right" doctor and get an infinite prescription for Vicadin, Oxycontin, etc. They stay stoned on half of them and sell the other half for more than most of us earn.
witchhunt wrote:Back to the original argument. Florida spent a quarter of a million in drug tests, only to find 2% tested positive. Is it worth it? Why isn't anyone who lives off of taxpayers money tested? I know that at least 2 of Bedford's high ranking officials use drugs.
The really ironic thing is that, how many people on welfare/disability go to the "right" doctor and get an infinite prescription for Vicadin, Oxycontin, etc. They stay stoned on half of them and sell the other half for more than most of us earn.
Right!
Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.
"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."
And what about the invasion of privacy issue? The ACLU will never stand for this.
I don't think it's about privacy. If that were the case, they wouldn't be able to drug test prospective employees, or randomly test them after they are hired. State employees in MD. are tested at random, and they're salary comes from tax dollars. I'm guessing that other states do this, but I can't say for sure. I'm all for testing politicians, it would be interesting to see who tests positive for what.
Pour me another one, cause I'll never find the silver lining in this cloud.
Small government is always good, except when we want to use it as a weapon against certain people we feel are lesser than us.
It is certainly unfair when some take advantage of the system, but that's not simply a lower-class issue.
Why is it so terrible for a small percentage of welfare recipients to play the system, but commendable for someone else to get out of paying more taxes in a year than that welfare recipient gets in a lifetime? If it hurts that your tax dollars pay the welfare queen's share, it should also hurt that you pay the boss's share as well.
The only fair solution would be to either drug-test everyone all the time (business has the right to drug-test us, we should be allowed to force the same on them), or drug-test no one (business loses the right to drug-test). Any other solution favors one class over the other.
I also include alcohol in with drugs. Why should an exec make unlimited salary, if he's coming in hung-over, or still hollow-eyed from the night before? All salaries in a business are paid by the people who patronize that business, why pay for decreased productivity and decision-making ability?
It's a no-brainer that Congress should be drug/alcohol-tested frequently. I think we all agree that they should be subject to ALL restrictions that their constituents are subjected to. I would bet real money that more than 2% would fail, if required to take an unscheduled drug/alcohol test.
Once for a job I was tested for drugs and alcohol. If ANY amount of alcohol was consumed during the previous 14 days even one beer they told me I'd test positive and be denied the job offer. Lucky for me just so happened I hadn't "gone out" for a couple of weeks so passing was not a problem.
One beer = no job.
I drank recreationally then, and do so now. What's the point in testing me or anyone for alcohol as a condition of employment? I acn't work for you because I have a beer after work?? WTF???
And if I'm addicted to prescription meds but have a valid 'script from a doc that i'm "under the care of" i'm good to go for welfare, even though i am still addicted? But if i get addicted under my own resources i'm out. Either way I'm addicted ...but the WAY i get addicted determines whether I get benefits. Or, if i'm NOT addicted but smoke grass occasionally or pop a pill recreationally, I'm out too. No tax funded help. It doesn't make sense to me.
jetcitywoman wrote:here's something to think about..
Once for a job I was tested for drugs and alcohol. If ANY amount of alcohol was consumed during the previous 14 days even one beer they told me I'd test positive and be denied the job offer. Lucky for me just so happened I hadn't "gone out" for a couple of weeks so passing was not a problem.
One beer = no job.
I drank recreationally then, and do so now. What's the point in testing me or anyone for alcohol as a condition of employment? I acn't work for you because I have a beer after work?? WTF???
Whoever gave you the test was mistaken or lied. Normal alcohol tests usually detect in hours, not days, with the high accuracy tests (that detect metabolites after the alcohol is completely gone) maxing out at around 3 days.
My issue with drug testing in general is that the harder the drug, the easier it is to fool a test. Mandatory testing is always going to catch a bunch of pot heads, but the junkies, cocaine and meth addicts will almost always pass since the tester has to hit a small window of a few days.
If anyone thinks that mandatory testing is going to make their taxes lower... think again. There is no way that is going to happen.
This is my view on it... Drug test (alcohol as well) everyone, top to bottom. Politicians, welfare recipients, and those of us going to jobs (seeing as they already do that). Since we (depending on our jobs) may be randomly tested, randomly test everyone. Call any person on welfare, and tell them they have 48hrs to schedule an appointment at such and such place. If they fail to make or go to an appointment, call them again a random time later (within a month). If they fail, within that 48hrs, to go to an appointment, cut em. Every so often, randomly test them, pacing every 3-6 months. If they fail a test once, give them the benefit of the doubt, but make a note. If they fail a second time, that's that
Walk around Altoona for a few weeks. Get to know a few people. Tell me, after that week, how many people are on welfare. Tell me how many of them have issues with alcohol or drugs. The idea isn't to stop the people that truly need it from getting it... It's to take the people who are simply abusing it for less savory purposes from throwing OUR money (US gov't property, courtesy of the tax payers) out the window. And, if they can't get welfare, maybe they'll have to go get a (GASP) JOB!
Wait, what? You mean to tell me that I'm so heartless and cruel that I would make a family that is a generational abuser of money this country gives them, actually get a JOB??? Well,... Yeah. I definitely would. And, I feel that welfare, moreover, should be given based off circumstance, not off total laziness. Mother of 3, single, has been putting tons of applications and has the proof of all of that, eager to work and eager to give back what she's getting, save for the hard times and that she can't right now? I'd be more likely to approve her than a household of 30somethings who have never worked a day in their life, always sitting on their asses and waiting for the next hand-out
Our country is full of people ranging from those of us who work to survive to people simply getting a check from us, both as politicians and as welfare recipients. We're already drug-tested at any job we get, and have to maintain a job to actually SURVIVE. Why is it such a horrible idea that other people have to follow some of the same standards?
Naga wrote:This is my view on it... Drug test (alcohol as well) everyone, top to bottom. Politicians, welfare recipients, and those of us going to jobs (seeing as they already do that). Since we (depending on our jobs) may be randomly tested, randomly test everyone. Call any person on welfare, and tell them they have 48hrs to schedule an appointment at such and such place. If they fail to make or go to an appointment, call them again a random time later (within a month). If they fail, within that 48hrs, to go to an appointment, cut em. Every so often, randomly test them, pacing every 3-6 months. If they fail a test once, give them the benefit of the doubt, but make a note. If they fail a second time, that's that
Walk around Altoona for a few weeks. Get to know a few people. Tell me, after that week, how many people are on welfare. Tell me how many of them have issues with alcohol or drugs. The idea isn't to stop the people that truly need it from getting it... It's to take the people who are simply abusing it for less savory purposes from throwing OUR money (US gov't property, courtesy of the tax payers) out the window. And, if they can't get welfare, maybe they'll have to go get a (GASP) JOB!
Wait, what? You mean to tell me that I'm so heartless and cruel that I would make a family that is a generational abuser of money this country gives them, actually get a JOB??? Well,... Yeah. I definitely would. And, I feel that welfare, moreover, should be given based off circumstance, not off total laziness. Mother of 3, single, has been putting tons of applications and has the proof of all of that, eager to work and eager to give back what she's getting, save for the hard times and that she can't right now? I'd be more likely to approve her than a household of 30somethings who have never worked a day in their life, always sitting on their asses and waiting for the next hand-out
Our country is full of people ranging from those of us who work to survive to people simply getting a check from us, both as politicians and as welfare recipients. We're already drug-tested at any job we get, and have to maintain a job to actually SURVIVE. Why is it such a horrible idea that other people have to follow some of the same standards?
Naga wrote:This is my view on it... Drug test (alcohol as well) everyone,
whoa there...mandatory drug test everyone? you don't see this as a violation of right to privacy? Should we also force all to submit their DNA into law enforcement database? How about random mandatory warrentless search of person & property, and wiretapping. Just to be sure you're not up to something! that'll fix em! lol
Naga wrote:
Wait, what? You mean to tell me that I'm so heartless and cruel that I would make a family that is a generational abuser of money this country gives them, actually get a JOB???
"generational abusers" have little to do with drug addiction..and mental illness which usually accompanies substance abuse. you are confounding two largely separate issues. If, as the facts show, that the vast majority of those receiving welfare are NOT substance abusers (smthg like 94%) then what's the feckling point of mandatory drug testing?? testing, that i may add, may cost more to administer than any miniscule savings kicking those few off the grid.
This is just more "feel good" legislation aimed squarely at those most vulnerable..the poor.
Let's make it simple. I'd like to propose a bill that states...
Anyone receiving welfare will not be permitted to use benefits to purchase the following...
Drugs
Alcohol
Books, magazines, newspapers
CDs, DVDs, albums, downloads
Cable TV
Cell phones or service
Land line phone service
Computers or hardware
Internet service
Concert, movie, event tickets
Audio or video devices
Musical instruments
Pets or pet supplies
Clothing may be purchased but only at Wal-Mart or The Dollar Store
Food may be purchased but only at Sav-A-Lot
witchhunt wrote:Let's make it simple. I'd like to propose a bill that states...
Anyone receiving welfare will not be permitted to use benefits to purchase the following...
Drugs
Alcohol
Books, magazines, newspapers
CDs, DVDs, albums, downloads
Cable TV
Cell phones or service
Land line phone service
Computers or hardware
Internet service
Concert, movie, event tickets
Audio or video devices
Musical instruments
Pets or pet supplies
Clothing may be purchased but only at Wal-Mart or The Dollar Store
Food may be purchased but only at Sav-A-Lot
You forgot cars, motorcycles and atv's. All seriousness, it is the drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes that should be banned. Everything else is fine with me.
