off if they drop dirty?
2006-12-10 04:02:33 · 13 answers · asked by paulisfree2004 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, that would be the right thing to do. Welfare is to help, not support (especially drug habits)
2006-12-10 04:06:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I see no reason other than president of the united states and his staff, why anyone should be drug tested. And I think he is long over due.
I do not take drugs but support decriminalization of pot.
California has 1/2 a million men in prison for non violent marijuana related charges. With a 50 prisoners per guard ratio that is 5 thousand times 3 shifts a day 15,000 prison guards making $60K a year for a total of $90 million bucks a year plus the cost of the prison and food, just to punish someone for smoking.
America has it's head on backwards.
Go big Red Go
2006-12-10 12:14:53 · answer #2 · answered by 43 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is reasonable to invade someone's privacy and tell them what sort of drugs they may take if their usual activities (like driving a truck) could endanger someone else if they are impaired. The trouble with most of the drug testing is that it applies to far more drugs that people realize...
People taking prescription quantities of ibuprophen will not pass a drug test, or eating poppy seed muffins, or who used to smoke pot in college and are now on a diet.
Would you also suggest that elderly and disabled persons not take their prescribed medications to maintain their benefits? Most of these people are on a form of welfare.
Let your mom know that America only cares about their elderly if they do not take medication for inflammation or pain.
And what would the sellers of poppy seed muffins say!?!
I do not think more intrusion into private lives makes for a better world in general, and it takes a whole lot of justification to get me to call it a good idea in any particular case. That you feel poor mothers, the elderly and the disabled ought to be further burdened and persecuted at my expense (yes, drug testing is costly) is offensive to me, and does not speak well for either your education or your character.
If we want to have a test to reduce the burden of welfare, perhaps we should not issue marriage licenses to people who show the metabolites of heavy drinking... In fact, perhaps those who have more than the 2 drinks per day that will produce these metabolites sterilized. Alcohol is a major cause of unsupported children and marital collapse.
We better randomly test people for metabolites of fatigue, which are identifiable... More driving deaths are caused by fatigue than alcohol. We could jail those who drive impaired by fatigue. It would help support effective public transport if tired people used the bus in all weather. We should suspend their licenses too for the common benefit.
In fact, since prisons are the biggest growth industry in the US, we should be supporting them by jailing people by lottery. That would provide more jobs...
Or maybe we can just not feed them when they are old and sick and have little to lose, or not feed their children when they are desperate, and wait for them to sell drugs or rob somebody,.. THEN jail them. I wonder if housing them in jails, and their children in foster care, would be cheaper and better for society?
2006-12-10 12:31:09 · answer #3 · answered by Gina C 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Here Here !! a person who makes sence.
Yes I believe that drug testing for ADULTS would not be out of order.
I also believe that birth control should be mandatory for mothers with more than 3 children.
2006-12-10 12:24:22 · answer #4 · answered by caciansf 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
isn't mandatory drug testing a violation of your civil rights?
don't most companies that test do so for cheaper workers comp premiums?
2006-12-10 12:07:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
WHAT??? And violate their rights??
Are you trying to suggest that you don't approve of your money supporting someones drug habit?
I suspect that your not a charter member in good standing with the ACLU.
2006-12-10 12:09:15 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
SMH. OK, I have heard it all. You want to force drug tests on people who receive public assistance? What's next sterilization? Oh, gawd, don't answer that...
2006-12-10 12:17:36 · answer #7 · answered by lyquidskye 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
And then what?
Instead, these people should have manditory sterilization after their second child. Both males and females.
It is the children we are interested in, remember? Those adults could starve.
And they know it, which is why they are baby-making machines.
2006-12-10 12:12:22 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!! How do we get that started? That would solve a lot of problems!! great question!
2006-12-10 12:08:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES
finally you are making some sense
2006-12-10 12:05:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋