Urine Tests
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 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? 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 @ss. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ???
2007-09-06 03:00:43 · 9 answers · asked by Joannie W 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This is a topic that I've seen on Yahoo as well as in general conversation with friends many times!
I couldn't agree with you more!
My suggestion is you write your state and congressional legislators to voice your concern....I have!
Best wishes.
2007-09-06 03:08:24 · answer #1 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. Such is ethics, but the law isn't always moral nor ethical. That's the problem with morals...they're loose, so not everyone abides by the same set. Some people don't have a problem with depending on hardworking people to pay bills for more than one household.
And to the person who said that you sign a contract when you are hired for a job: This isn't necessarily the case. I live in a "right to work" state, where I can quit at anytime without a reason, or notice. As well as, I can be fired for any reason (besides those that violate the American Disabilities Act, and EEOC acts). I did not sign a contract when I was hired, and I am required to take a random urine and hair test when I am subpoenaed to do so.
2007-09-06 03:20:44 · answer #2 · answered by inpinkside2108 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's actually a very good point, I never thought of that! Why don't they do that? They would probably have to send a nurse to your house in order to test you...and there are A LOT of people on well fare to test, so a lot of houses to visit! Many of those people though would probably argue that they can't work because they are "sick" and are on "medication" so that is why they are not passing that urine test, but I'm sure there are ways to see exactly what substance is in your body.... I am just afraid that these people would find ways to go around the rules, as they usually do. But I definitely agree with you!
2007-09-06 03:12:49 · answer #3 · answered by Yul'ka 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While I understand your point, I don't expect that the result would be to ever take anyone off the welfare rolls, so we would not only not save any money, we'd lose the money spent on the testing.
My idea of "welfare" would be to give everyone in the country all the rice and beans they want. Regardless of income, anyone can go to any store and pick up rice and beans, and the government gets the bill for it. Since anyone can get it for free, there will be no abuse of the program by resellers, no one will convert their rice and beans into cash to buy cigarettes or drugs. Nobody will starve, but nobody gets rich on welfare by having more babies or getting welfare from multiple states. Most of all, there's an incentive to solve one's own problem.
2007-09-06 03:33:56 · answer #4 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here is the odd little issue with that, not that I am agreeing I am just stating they way the system works. In a job you sign a contract and in order to continue employment and receive pay you must abide by the terms of that contract. Many of which will include that you have to maintain a certain level of "health" to adequately perform duties. In that sense drugs testing is a contractual obligation, or in some cases voluntary, however necessary to continue employment.
When you recieve welfare there is no contract, there is no expectation of sobriety in order to perform, so therefore randomly test recipients would be a violation of their rights.
2007-09-06 03:08:33 · answer #5 · answered by smedrik 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great idea. To the person who said people would say they are on medication for illness, I had to take a pee test for my job about 6 weeks after my son was born. In the hospital, I was given percocet for the pain, and I even had a prescription for after I was released. I told them up front that I had taken it in the hospital and it did show up in my system. I had a prescription, so I passed, since they found nothing else. There are alot of people on welfare using drugs without a prescription, they are the ones who shouldn't get any government assistance. If someone needs help getting on their feet, that's fine, but not if they're just going to sit on their butt doing drugs.
I used to be friends with this girl, who now goes to the free clinic complaining of back pain and gets free pain pills for her and her boyfriend to snort, or sell. She actually called me a few months back and told me to go to the hospital and complain of some kind of pain and to give her the pain pills. I laughed and hung up on her.
2007-09-06 03:37:11 · answer #6 · answered by .. 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
absolutely great idea
100% agree
It wouldnt be a violation of civilrights if it was added to the application for benefits
2007-09-06 03:09:38 · answer #7 · answered by sharonsmineonly 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would sure bring the welfare bill down..........
2007-09-06 06:42:49 · answer #8 · answered by DennistheMenace 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
gr8 point test em all...
2007-09-06 03:08:58 · answer #9 · answered by guzznos 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋