Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit.
In order to get that paycheck. I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. 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 have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their ***. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
2007-04-04 20:08:50 · 4 answers · asked by wcbaseball4 4 in Business & Finance ➔ Taxes ➔ United States
I agree. All who accept a form of assistance should be open and willing to submit to monitoring. There's nothing wrong with holding them up to the same standards that you and all of us are required to. Contact your legislator and voice your opinion.
2007-04-12 03:02:41 · answer #1 · answered by Brett C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you don't like the state of things, contact your elected representatives. And don't forget to vote YOURSELF.
Reality check time: At least the folks that I know who are on public assistance, none of them use illegal drugs. Don't expect massive savings if this should become a requirement. Possibly not even enough to offset the cost of the program.
Of course, you have the Constitution to deal with as well. The courts have held that private employers can require drug testing as part of the employment agreement between the employer and employee. However, public employees cannot be required to pass a drug test unless a direct link between public safety and the testing can be substantiated. It isn't likely that the courts would hold it to be valid for collecting public assistance.
2007-04-05 04:10:37 · answer #2 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree
All those individuals that are on welfare and getting funds from our Government should have to pass a urine test.
So many that I have come in contact are not using the funds for the right reason, to sustain life.
I had a grand daughter that was spending the funds that she was getting and if they would have required that in her earlier years they just might have been able to stop her from becoming a drug addict. Then when it came time to get her off drugs it the cost was very high.
2007-04-12 18:28:17 · answer #3 · answered by Sallie Rhea 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the way you think.
Just don't expect any substantial savings from this program; the cost of collection and ongoing monitoring would cost plenty.
2007-04-12 21:57:05 · answer #4 · answered by Bonehead 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋