English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am just a poor working person and I am subject to drug testing. So why are the people that recive money deducted from my check not drug tested ??? I need a break !

2007-01-16 00:12:21 · 5 answers · asked by Frann 4 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

5 answers

I agree. There should be random tests if they receive our tax money and do not work. If they can buy drugs, they should be able to work to support their habits just like i do.

2007-01-16 00:16:48 · answer #1 · answered by Rod Rod Go 6 · 1 1

What is the total Federal taxes deducted from your check? We spend $400 billion per year on defense. Our Humvee's in Iraq are not properly equipped to withstand a IED. The patriot missile system is only about 50 percent effective. That's $2 million per missile lost. Star wars cost tax payers over $10 billion and it does not work. Taxes went up under Bush and Republicans not down. We have a $9 trillion national debt. The Iraq war will cost working class tax payers $2 trillion. Who would pay for this drug testing?

2007-01-16 09:30:00 · answer #2 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0 1

Frann, that is a perfectly good question and one that you should be asking your State Legislature, or better yet, demanding that all Government officials be subject to randon drug testing. If you remember right, we (the people) almost had a law passed to have this done but our then President Veto that bill and it was never brought up again. (No doubt, to the prayers of a lot of our Elected Officials) These people are not suppose to be in control of us, but to be kept in check to do the best job "FOR" us.

I agree with you 110% that the people who make the laws should be made to abide by them as well. With all the corruption that goes on inside our Government, I'm surprised that the majority of it's constituents aren't swarming D.C. demanding "JUSTICE".

2007-01-16 08:43:29 · answer #3 · answered by maginethat 4 · 1 0

It's a constitutional thing, we wouldn't understand.

I suppose it could be circumvented by saying it was just an administrative requirement in order to qualify for public assistance, but that it could not be used in any other matter (criminal trial, etc.).

2007-01-16 08:17:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Thats life, nobody claims it to be fair.

2007-01-16 08:16:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers