We should drug-trest anyone revicing public aid. And those who fail the test get kicked off the rolls.
We could probably save billions!
2007-03-16 21:31:27 · 15 answers · asked by Frank 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ive been saying that for eons! I am so tired of paying taxes to by other people's drugs, cigs, lottery tickets, thats not what it was ment for. I also think that community service for their check is inorder! I dont care if its changing bed pans at the va hosptial, or helping in day care, picking up garbage along the highway, no free lunches, and if you cant feed them dont breed them
2007-03-16 22:54:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
like someone else said... maybe EVERYONE that gets money from the government should receive drug tests...including all employees (including president and senators and all the employees at any company that recieves government funds, at the expense of the company)...
but I don't think they should be kicked out if they test positive... unless they refuse a long term treatment program... (maybe like a three strikes and your out kind of thing)
if you cut out many of the welfare recipients that are on drugs... then what are they going to do? turn to crime... so THEN you have to pay for more officers... pay for more insurance (because people will be breaking into people's houses), pay for more jail cells (and everything that goes with jail cells)... and all those "billions" you saved were just spend all over again putting people in jail... actually, it would probably be more to pay for all of that, than what they were getting in welfare...
there are consequences to actions... that's why rehab is not only important for the individual... but the country's pocketbook...
2007-03-16 22:26:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
in case you're searching for solutions, and not a communicate board for voicing displeasure, i will grant some. one million) value. it is super government looking yet yet in any different case to spend tax funds on inner maximum companies. Whoever 'wins' this settlement, has a activity for all times. Is that what we would like from government? 2) Morality and governance. confident, making use of pot is illegitimate, as is heroin, crack, etc. Having the government shop lists of people who do use is a sprint creepy, do no longer you think of? If I smoked pot, (and that i do no longer) i might argue that this below no circumstances impacts my skill to paintings Monday with the aid of Friday, if I smoke (merely) on weekends. because of the fact the assessments can no longer differentiate whilst somebody used, provided that they did, this seems somewhat heavy-surpassed. 3) How close could any human beings come to having the government direct and dictate our lives? there's a very actual loss of freedom linked with the style of testing. "What next?" is a valid problem. Drug assessments for driving force's licenses? faculties? librarians? the place does it provide up, if it rather is stopped? 4) jointly as I consider the reason of the regulation, the utility of it does reason some very valid concerns. Can it is used as a warrantless seek and seizure authorization? etc. some human beings concern a police state as much as we concern the rest. that may not an exaggeration, BTW.
2016-12-18 15:53:46 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree completely. I have to get drug tested as terms of my employment, actually had to as condition of my hiring. Why should anyone get a free ride at taxpayers expense and why should they object to being tested either? I have no problem helping people at all...short term...but I do have a problem helping people continue living a life dependent on welfare, sometimes a mindset handed down from generation to generation. I really can't understand how anyone thinks this is a bad or unfair idea.
2007-03-16 21:45:27 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because if we test all those receiving Welfare, the liberals would make a law stating that the government must provide treatment for the drug addicts and still get welfare.
2007-03-16 21:42:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You mean like the CEO's of the Oil Companies? The arms manufacturers? All the corn and cotton farmers? Prez Bush?
Sure, go right ahead. Those corporate pigs have been sucking at the public trough for too long now.
2007-03-16 21:44:22 · answer #6 · answered by kappalokka 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm liberal and don't have a problem with that.. Why should they recieve benefits if they're breaking the law? Sounds like a good idea to me, though I highly doubt it will save billions...
2007-03-16 21:45:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
While we are at it, why don't we drug test every major public official including the president, his cabinet, senate, house, etc...
Anyone who fails it, loses their position, pay, and pension.
We could save billions!
2007-03-16 21:56:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not sure if you got this from my ACLU answer but..... Welfare should be abolished. Short of that, anyone getting my hard earned dollars should have to prove that they will not buy crack with it. Although, I also think crack should be legal, but thats a whole other topic.
2007-03-16 21:41:12 · answer #9 · answered by Tucson Hooligan 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because that would anger welfare recipients, most of whom vote democrat. They're not going bite the hands that they feed, that feed them.
2007-03-16 21:47:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋