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

Like a lot of folks in this state(IL) I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck,I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. 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 sitting on their butt.
Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check????? It cost approx $15 for a monthly drug test verses approx $1000 per month per welfare recipient. Coke and Crack may leave the urine system quickly but it remains in the hair up to a year. Another test that cost less to perform!

2007-07-19 03:14:46 · 19 answers · asked by Fancygal 3 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

19 answers

I agree with you but let me play ''the devils advocate'' for just a minute and say to you that the majority of those people need the money but the few that have drug problems and get assistance and are cut off will turn to crime to get what they need.This causes Insurance rates to rise and the state spends a considerable amount of money finding, arresting, convicting,and incarceration costs to the city and state will go up resulting in higher taxes and the like. what we need is bring back the millions of jobs lost in the U.S.A. to foriegn countries and since NAFTA we are losing more and more on a daily basis, you can thank the Republican Party for this,Now both Parties,Democrats and Republicans have their faults BUT as history tells us the Democrats are for the ''little people'' so even with their faults we need to put Democrats in charge of the country for at least 10 yrs. to straighten out the ''mess'' the Republicans have done.We need work programs for these people on assistance, so many work programs have gone by the wayside from ''outsourcing'' that these programs have disappeared in many cities, hence the need for assistance and higher crime rates. We can debate this endlessly but what we need is for the people of this Country to stand up in unity and demand that our government bring jobs back to this country.

2007-07-19 03:34:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Hi Fancy....I also live in Illinois and I can see your issue to a certain point. Not all jobs require a urine/drug test. Most of your jobs that mandatory a drug test are your health services, a few factories, city/county officials and others alike. Some of your restaurants and video stores or retail stores do not mandate a drug test. My job also required a mandatory drug test. Due to the type of job that I have. Which is working closely with individuals and supervising. I agree with you on the drug testing for assistance but there is a fine red line that one can't cross in doing so. If an individual is suspected in buying drugs or doing drugs while on assistance then they should be investigated and dealt with accordingly, because this is, in a way defrauding the government and it's intentions in assisting the individual and their family. The same goes for Social Security. How many individuals are faking their illness in order to receive Social Security so they don't have to work like everyone else? The less honest individuals make it hard for the ones that need the benefits look bad to where they fight for years to get approved but yet these other individuals receive the benefits right off the bat so do speak. So if you are going to change the rules for one government department, then you need to change the rules for others also. But in order to do this type of change then the government has to go thru the "red tape" and change priorities and I don't see this happening. Not any time soon anyway. Your idea is a good one but to the Government its reforming a department/s and will cost them money. Have a great day!

2007-07-19 03:38:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

First of all random drug screens are done to weed out the drug users and keep the other employees and company safe from serious injuries and very high workman's comp insurance. And Crack and Cocaine do not leave the system that quickly. The money that is paid for the drug screens do not go to the 'welfare' people. It goes to the facilities and/or companies that provide the tests (assuming the tests are rapid drug screens) Now a small portion of the sales tax of those rapid drug screens may go towards the welfare community, but most of the federal and state taxes that come out of your check every week is what goes to the welfare people. Not the drug screens.

2007-07-19 03:34:05 · answer #3 · answered by irish_indian_fantasy 3 · 0 1

You have a valid point. We do hair follicle tests and go back 90 days for $50 each. It can go back 7 years but hel l ya drug test them most are working the system anyway. And why not give them a job picking up trash on the highway or cutting public grass. Like you I have no problem helping people but we should also require that they attempt to earn a living like true Americans, rather than having more babies and raising them with the same goals as their parents and never learning to work and earn their way through life. And a lot of the ones on welfare actually have more kids just so they can get more money for the # of people under their roof. Not to mention a lot of couples don't get married because they can get two checks that way. I had a guy working for me who actually got a divorce so they could get welfare and he made $16.50 per hour. The jerk tried to sell me his wife's Lone Star card. We are not working to provide for the poor we are being taken advantage of by scum. Not intended to offend those who truly do need help, but we could do so much more for those who are in need of help, rather than lining the pockets of trash.

2007-07-19 03:27:14 · answer #4 · answered by Big Deall 4 · 1 0

What they really need to do is make YOU pay for the drug test. The company would charge $70, put cameras in the bathroom, get the testing supplies at Wal-mart (Home testing kit, $10) and pocket the difference so the boss has vacation funds.

America has gone drug test crazy, yet we don't test trust fund babies, politicians, members of Congress, the President, judges, priests, educators, entertainers, business owners, immigrants and the list goes on.

If Adolf Hitler had thought of the War on Drugs he would have been eligible for sainthood in his church today.

2007-07-19 03:32:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

you're right - and people who don't drive shouldn't pay for any roads - and the rest of the states shouldn't pay money for those people in Alaska - ups they got oil - and people who never need to call the police shouldn't have to pay their share of taxes that go to fund the force - and people who dis agreed with the Iraq disaster shouldn't pay their bit - and stuff the off spring of drugies why waste taxes on them - they are just going going to follow their parents anyway - absolutely - in fact if you don't like bush don't pay any taxes and why pay taxes to fund the billion dollar election when you don't vote

2007-07-19 03:31:30 · answer #6 · answered by ccsnsw 2 · 0 0

I never thought of that but I agree with you. I would go one step further and extend the random drug testing to the government bureaucracy handing out those checks.

2007-07-19 03:21:36 · answer #7 · answered by rshiffler2002 3 · 3 0

Sure, if you want to live in a draconian Police State with hidden cameras in your bathroom. I think all drug-testing except for convicted criminals or people working in high-security jobs is an outrageous breach of civil liberties (I know that term gets bandied about a lot but I'm quite serious).

I seem to remember a certain president who smoked marijuana, so if it's okay for him to hold the highest office in the land, why should a guy who uses cocaine recreationally once a month (cocaine is not usually so addictive as it is commonly portrayed) be barred from receiving state benefits or getting a job?

2007-07-19 03:22:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

Agree. cease doing those undesirable issues. do not throw your life away. Be sturdy. in case you're on probation, then you definitely have been given a 2d hazard--do not waste it. perhaps take up working, it relatively is a large tension reliever.

2016-12-14 13:29:31 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I like it, lets start right away, everyone submit it to the candidates.

2007-07-19 03:18:13 · answer #10 · answered by John S 4 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers