What do you think about this if it was a law?

Question

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 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 bottoms, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you
imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ?

TJ
Well looking at your profile, yours was long and boring also. And your welcome!

Ida Slapter
I'm not assuming everyone is, that is why a drug test would sit well for those who don't. Also they can use some of my money for the test....

I understand about the children part, by all means they need to be fed. Some of you guys are looking way be on what I am trying to show here.

Answer 1

I have said for a long time that welfare should require random drug screening. I also add that if someone fails, they would be provided access to drug therapy...ONCE.

Edit...to those who oppose:
1. The cost would not be huge. You do not have to screen often, and day 1 you would have a large number of people drop off welfare for fear of getting caught.
2. Drug tests have become very inexpensive. I pay $30 to have each of my employees screened, and that includes the administration.
3. Those who think you can beat it, think again. You can beat a drug screen if you know it is coming, but you cannot beat it if you come in and they say here is a cup...no warning.
4. As for the children...if the parents are on drugs and unable to provide for their children because they are spending their money on drugs, their children should be taken away. As for the "Foster Care system is overloaded" argument...it is obvious that you are not informed. There are more foster parents than kids. I know 3 foster parents who want more kids and there are not any available.
5. "Unemployed stoners would cost us too much" If they are on welfare, they are costing us too much now.
6. bigA...you really need to stay off the drugs. You cannot even complete a thought.
7. The right to privacy argument breaks down. They are not REQUIRED to take the piss test unless they want the free money. It is just like employment screenings. You do not have to take the test...unless you want the job. If someone (or in this case the government...ie the people) are giving you money, they have the right to set conditions...they set conditions now. By the privacy argument, they would not be able to ask what you earn...invasion of your privacy.
8. ACLU...Let's skip the very thought that the organization should be banned for supporting illegal activity (NAMBLA) and shunned by thinking Americans for trampling on the rights of Americans...but they do not have a leg to stand on because of the answer in number 7.

Answer 2

That seems like a good idea. The only problem is that some drugs don't show up on the test, such as meth-amphetimines after a few days. Also I don't like any new legistlation generally, because there always is spending to go along with it. If they passed a law that says all lightbulbs that screw in should be "righty tighty", it probably would cost millions, even if all lightbulbs are that type already.
Also I do mind that I pay taxes, but I don't have any hand in deciding where my money goes. Why not just let people keep thier money that they earned? That money goes to families too.

Answer 3

Sounds good to me. I am 67 and do not want to help support some dope head. I think it should be a law if you don't pass the drug test you lose your citizen ship and have to pass three random tests before you get it back. I believe if there is an able bodied male in the house no welfare be given. There are too many jobs today. For god sake pick up cans of nothing else.

Answer 4

I think that was a very interesting proposal and see much logic in it. I for one think the welfare program in America sucks and doesn't work. I wouldn't mind if it was helping those that really need the help, but then there's ones that just take advantage of it and don't bother working since they're getting money. I've heard of people having more kids just so they can collect more welfare money, and this is just ridiculous. Maybe those that are on welfare should be forced to practice safe sex too.

Answer 5

A simpler solution would be to abolish the welfare program completely. It has been reversing evolution for too long already. Welfare makes it possible for the weak and worthless to procreate. It rewards those who have children that they cannot afford. These indigent moochers are multiplying like rats while intelligent working people are struggling to feed one child per family. Sorry to go on a rant, but this has always rubbed me the wrong way.

Answer 6

Wow! I never thought of it like that before. I too work for a large company at which I am subject to random drug-testing, and as long as I don't do any drugs, I'm welcome to continue earning paychecks from them You're absolutely right, why shouldn't the people that receive government assistance be required to submit to drug-testing also? I think they SHOULD have to prove that they're not squandering OUR hard-earned dollars on drugs. But, I can tell you right now, the liberal Democrats would scream bloody murder, as would the ACLU. Now, I in no way meant to disparage any Democrats, but even they must agree with my opinion that their party would fight tooth and nail against any legislation forcing government-aid recipients to submit to mandatory drug screenings. Simple fact.

Answer 7

I've seen this in a e-mail, and yes, I do agree that people on assistance should have to pass the same drug testing that people have to pass in order to work. If people aren't doing things they shouldn't be doing, then they should have no problem passing the test.

Answer 8

Well, while the theory behind this is very sound, the administrative costs would be ridiculous, and you would be equally wasting your tax dollars, not to mention that the ACLU would be all over the civil rights violations of urine collection. A better idea would be to allow private charity to distribute "welfare", and then they would be able to be selective with it, and furthermore, you wouldn't have to pay for it if you didn't want to.

Answer 9

The states would have so much money from not having to give assistance that it'd be a windfall. However, you must remember that it's not the adults that necessarily need the assistance, it's the children. You take away the assistance from idiotic adults who decide to do drugs & take it out of the mouths & off the backs of the innocent children. Take the children away? Yeah right, our foster care system is overloaded as is.

I'm sorry, but your solution wouldn't work where children are involved. Yes, there are those without children receiving assistance, but not as many as those who have children & receive assistance.

Answer 10

I could not agree with you more. Now let me put another chink in your china. What ever state it is that you live in...they receive X amount of dollars for these people to sit on their butts. They want this money comming in. They need it for their budget every year. If they do not spend the entire budget...they stop getting the money. Sucks huh?