posted on January 14, 2008 04:16:00 PM new
(I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)
I DO HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB..... BUT I AGREE 100%
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, however, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS 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?
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country -- and soon!
posted on January 14, 2008 07:36:58 PM new
Stone, an interesting concept. One that scares me because I shudder that the children of the drug users are going to suffer the most. I also don't think we are equipped with the rehab programs to handle the onslaught of new people trying to get off drugs this program would bring. At the same time, the children of the addicted aren't benefiting from the current system. Non-working addicted parents use the money intended to raise their children to buy drugs and perpetuate the neglect. How could we ensure the children of addicts are not going hungry or neglected with the savings from this program? Edited to add: one idea is to offer a 3-square meal deal at schools for low-income students. My niece, a new teacher at an impoverished Las Vegas school, has a rewards bag filled with toys and food. The children always choose food.
[ edited by pixiamom on Jan 14, 2008 08:17 PM ]
posted on January 15, 2008 01:36:53 AM new
Another idea is to provide free child care for the working poor. Many mothers find it more profitable to have babies, stay at home and receive funds than to go out to to work and pay over half their low income to child care.
posted on January 15, 2008 05:19:35 AM new
The Fed already provides free and reduced price breakfast and lunch for qualifying kids at public schools.
I agree with Stone. I see no reason why those on public assistance shouldn't meet some minimum requirements for remaining there. If I'm tested, why shouldn't those who benefit from the taxes I pay be tested too?
posted on January 15, 2008 09:41:35 AM new
Boy, is this a hot topic! I agree they should have to pass some sort of test to get help. And for ages I've resented that women getting government assistance, usually single women, continue to have baby after baby. It's irresponsible of them.
_____________________
Aside from the fact that urinalysis is ineffective and unreliable it's very expensive. Can you imagine the cost of drug testing all recipients of welfare...even if that policy made any sense.
As someone suggested you should at least have some compassion and consideration for the number of children who will suffer if that policy is implemented.
Families regardless of their financial status should not under ordinary circumstances have to submit to drug testing. Seems to me that such testing would be considered an unreasonable search and therefore a violation of American's Fourth Amendment rights.
But, maybe you can manage to use that piss test as a weapon, kick those welfare asses, deny their pitiful amount of assistance, snatch their children and build a state run orphanage industry. Then, a portion of your taxes can be used to perform urinalysis, build and support orphanages and feed and care for those little children while the adults starve and corporations who serve your horrific agenda make a killing.
posted on January 15, 2008 01:50:56 PM new
I wonder how stoney will feel when he has to take a urine test to get his social security check (aka public assistance check) under his anology.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on January 15, 2008 01:57:13 PM new
Roadsmith says, "And for ages I've resented that women getting government assistance, usually single women, continue to have baby after baby. It's irresponsible of them."
Don't forget that men are there to deliver the sperm. What do you think about their responsibility? Perhaps we should limit them to only one delivery? And would that be before or after the piss test?
posted on January 15, 2008 08:30:36 PM newI wonder how stoney will feel when he has to take a urine test to get his social security check (aka public assistance check) under his anology.
You see that person in front of the line? That's me. I have nothing to hide. Although there will be a huge difference. I will have earned that social security check as opposed to the lazy azzes that receive most of our public assistance (non-social security) funds now.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on January 15, 2008 08:43:51 PM new
I don't even hope to reap back the money I've given to Social Security. It IS NOT public assistance. Also, we women have claimed control over our reproductive rights. Although men SHOULD contribute support for the children they fathered, it is (rightly so) the woman's decision to have children. Women without income other than government assistance who choose to have children by men who are unable to contribute (or who they are unwilling to name as the father) are often in the business of garnering a monthly government check for each kid they pop out. I have concern for the welfare of the children, not the parents. Corporations deem the expense of urine tests as money well spent. If it is reasonable that millions of workers participate in urine tests (sorry, I am not totally sold on them), it is reasonable for people expecting public assistance to participate.
[ edited by pixiamom on Jan 16, 2008 12:13 AM ]
posted on January 16, 2008 05:01:54 AM new
Helen, seems to me like there ought to be some sort of middle ground. I know there are serious problems with the accuracy of drug tests, but I really think there needs to be more accountability in the way assistance is provided. Living in a small, isolated community, I know pretty much all of my kids' parents and the dopers are well known to everyone. Most of the dopers are also on some sort of assistance and their kids' meals are subsidized at school. We have always done a Christmas auction in the community, this year we raised over $8K and a group of volunteers went shopping for clothes and gifts for kids from targeted families. I am becoming disillusioned about this because I almost never see those new warm winter coats on the kids I know received them, and for the last several years I've been told by the manager of the WalMart in town that lots of those gifts are returned by the parents for cash. Our auction committe decided this year that they are going to spread the shopping around to other businesses due to WM's liberal return policy, to try and make it harder for those parents to return their kids' gifts. How sad is that?
I do know some hard working, honest, drug free low income parents who are struggling to provide the very best for their kids, and I would hate to see them lose the public assistance they're getting.
My heart goes out to the kids who get trapped in druggy homes, I couldn't care less about the adults. Maybe the solution is some sort of test that would be required before being allowed to breed.
posted on January 16, 2008 08:00:30 AM new
When lack of education is the crux of the problem why not focus on that? Provide child care for working mothers. Provide job training. Provide something helpful and then they may be able to survive without the pittance that welfare provides and then they won't have to trade Christmas presents for cash.
This suggestion about drug testing reminds me of all the threads devoted to a discussion of following poor mothers around the grocery store counting the number of twinkies in their shopping cart.
What self righteous BS...if you were in their shoes you might try to relax occasionally with a little weed too.
posted on January 16, 2008 08:21:41 AM new
Helen, of course the focus should be on educating the jobless and those on welfare. I'm a liberal democrat and have major sympathies with the poor; I support our local Help Center with donations of food and clothing.
But I was one of those who was sorry in this forum to see junk food piled in grocery carts, being paid for with food stamps. That too is an education issue, isn't it?
Personal responsibility and accountability is important, and the women who don't know how they get pregnant or who lack the money for birth-control methods need education in this regard. It's really not fair to continue to use our tax dollars for more and more babies without a massive education plan--and some teeth in the welfare system.
When I had my first baby, in 1964, a woman sharing my room was on her 17th pregnancy; she was 35 or 40 and told us she didn't know how it could happen. When her dr. came in, he talked with her about the process. She was exhausted and at her wit's end, and called her children to ask them to name the baby. I think of her often.
_____________________
Roadsmith, I appreciate your agreement that education is the root problem. Actually, we should qualify that belief to consider the economy today with millions losing both their homes and jobs. And with costly medical care sometimes leading to bankruptcy many well educated people are vulnerable.
And of course we have to consider this society in which many women are led to believe that marriage is more important than education. With that in mind how can it be surprising to see so many women reduced to poverty with no appreciable goal other than to please a man.
posted on January 16, 2008 06:34:05 PM new
I don't think the concept is "Lindaesque" Helen. If not drug testing, what's wrong with some kind of accountability on the part of those who are recieving public assistance? What other options are there? I'm not suggesting there aren't any, I'd really like to know what they are.
posted on January 16, 2008 08:58:28 PM new
I haven't studied the statistics, but I would chance a guess that the majority of public assistance money doesn't go to people who are temporarily down on their luck and need a hand to get them back on their feet. I think the majority goes to able-bodied lo--oong term recipients who have learned from their parents and are teaching their children how to work the system. I wonder what percentage of drug dealers are receiving public monies to supplement their unreported incomes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for cutting spending, just in redirecting it. I'll bet the emotionally-challenged people combing through my garbage for pop bottles, living in the park receive little public assistance. The money goes to the welfare-scammers on Judge Judy who are suing their friends for their split of phony daycare reimbursements.
posted on January 17, 2008 05:03:23 AM new "I don't think the concept is "Lindaesque" Helen. If not drug testing, what's wrong with some kind of accountability on the part of those who are recieving public assistance? What other options are there? I'm not suggesting there aren't any, I'd really like to know what they are."
I am sure that the Department of Human Resources requires accountability such as a comprehensive documentation of financial need. And an able bodied recipient of welfare without a job is responsible for seeking employment or be willing to participate in job training activities.
The stereotypical welfare recipient being discussed in this thread is in the minority.
posted on January 17, 2008 05:33:32 AM new
this is a little off topic. But the original post made me wonder - Is random drug testing on the job common? I've worked at the same facility for 24 years and have never been subject to random drug testing. About six months ago the facility was sold and I had to pass a urine test to be hired by the new owners. I've heard of lots of people who have to take a drug test to get a job, but I don't know any (or at least any who have mentioned it) who are subject to random drug testing on the job.
Is my experience atypical?
As for the topic of random drug testing welfare receipients, it seems logistically impractical and would undoubtedly just add costs to the programs.
[b]This may help to dispel some myths about welfare...from my Social Studies textbook.
Social Problems
John J. Macionis
An Undeserved Handout" The Truth about Welfare.
1."Most welfare goes to the poor." Not true. If we look at all government income programs, we find hundreds that offer financial benefits---cash transfers or reduced taxes....to many categories of people. Overall, no more than half of all governmental benefits go to poor people.
2. "Most public assistance goes to able-bodied people." Not true. Most assistance goes to people who are too old or too young to work. Some programs do assist poor mothers who do not work. But these funds are primarily for support of children, and they are provided only for a limited time.
3. "Once on welfare always on welfare". Before the welfare reforms of 1996, there was some truth to this. Studies showed that half of families who ever enrolled in Aid for Families with Dependent Children received public assistance for four years or more. But because recent reforms limit lifetime benefits to five years this is no longer the case.
4. "Welfare recipients are African Americans and other minorities." Not true. White households receive 64 percent of all food stamps and occupy 61 percent of public housing units (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002; U.S. Department of Agriculture 2003) It is true that, in proportion to population size, minorities are more likely than whites to receive income assistance. In the 1990's about half of African American families received some kind of public assistance (the most common was school lunch programs), compared with 45 percent of Hispanic families and 16 percent of white families These differences parallel the likelihood of being poor.
5. "Welfare encourages single women to have children". "Not true. The average number of children among women without husbands is the same whether or not families receive welfare support. The case has also been made that welfare assistance enabled some women to support children, without marrying. This may be so, but the trend toward more single parenting is found among people of all income levels and in all high income nations.
6. Welfare fraud is a serious national problem". Not really. Anyone who works at a social service agency will tell you that people take advantage of the system, but most benefits go to people who are truly needy.
posted on January 17, 2008 06:51:56 AM new Cherishedclutter, I was typing my comment while you posted your question...So I'm sorry for that interruption. I have a friend with a high security job who was tested at least once...maybe on a regular basis but I'm not sure. The problem with the test is that it's not reliable for all drugs and as you mentioned expensive.
I'll repost your comment so that it won't be overlooked.
Cherishedclutter posted, "this is a little off topic. But the original post made me wonder - Is random drug testing on the job common? I've worked at the same facility for 24 years and have never been subject to random drug testing. About six months ago the facility was sold and I had to pass a urine test to be hired by the new owners. I've heard of lots of people who have to take a drug test to get a job, but I don't know any (or at least any who have mentioned it) who are subject to random drug testing on the job."
"Is my experience atypical?"
"As for the topic of random drug testing welfare recipients , it seems logistically impractical and would undoubtedly just add costs to the programs."
posted on January 17, 2008 09:56:59 AM new
Legalize all street drugs, tax accordingly.
Too many resources wasted on enforcement and incarceration. Laws that have proved no efficacy in being a deterrent or abating the problem.
[ edited by hillbillymo on Jan 17, 2008 10:12 AM ]
posted on January 18, 2008 09:04:16 AM new
Thanks for posting the link, Helen.
Article speaks volumes as to the problem. Considering the sentiments expressed are from a former law enforcement officer it adds more than a measure of credence to the message.
[ edited by hillbillymo on Jan 18, 2008 09:05 AM ]
Stamper has considered all arguments related to legalization and as you suggested his experience as a police officer for 34 years and as Chief of Seattle's Police Department for six years lends credence and adds interest to his opinion.
posted on January 18, 2008 03:05:59 PM new
I agree with Stamper too. The drug war is a lost cause. I do wonder though about how crystal meth fits into the picture. This is a drug unlike any of the others. There's NO wiggle room. You can't try it a time or two or use it on occasion recreationally. It's dirt cheap and deadly and it's most often addictive the first time it's used. Maybe if other drugs were available and cheap people wouldn't turn to it so readily. Among the dopers around here it's certainly the drug of choice and I don't care to count how many lives and families I've seen it ruin, even in our small community.
posted on January 18, 2008 07:18:27 PM new
Prof, I agree. Besides the devastating tragic effects on families, the general population is affected as well. Violence created by erratic meth behavior, safe and cheap cold medicine taken off the market because it's used in meth labs. There are also cultural losses. Several years ago, we had a family reunion on the "family farm", still worked by a close second cousin. It was sad to see that most of the neighboring farm houses had been burned to the ground to keep them from becoming meth houses. What a waste!
posted on January 18, 2008 08:14:07 PM new
You could say the same or worse about the effects of alcohol such as adverse health consequences, fires, violence, and fatalities from auto accidents. And the number of families ruined by alcohol abuse would far exceed the number of families affected by a drug such as meth.
Alcohol related crashes, for example are the leading cause of death for young Americans between the ages of 16 and 24.
posted on January 18, 2008 08:23:19 PM new From Stamper's article...
How would "regulated legalization" work? It would:
• Permit private companies to compete for licenses to cultivate, harvest, manufacture, package and peddle drugs.
• Create a new federal regulatory agency (with no apologies to libertarians or paleo-conservatives).
• Set and enforce standards of sanitation, potency and purity.
• Ban advertising.
• Impose (with congressional approval) taxes, fees and fines to be used for drug-abuse prevention and treatment and to cover the costs of administering the new regulatory agency.
• Police the industry much as alcoholic-beverage-control agencies keep a watch on bars and liquor stores at the state level. Such reforms would in no way excuse drug users who commit crimes: driving while impaired, providing drugs to minors, stealing an iPod, assaulting one's spouse, abusing one's child. The message is simple. Get loaded, commit a crime, do the time.
These reforms would yield major reductions in a host of predatory street crimes, a disproportionate number of which are committed by users who resort to stealing in order to support their addiction.
Regulated legalization would soon dry up most stockpiles of currently illicit drugs — substances of uneven, often questionable quality (including "bunk," i.e., fakes such as oregano, gypsum, baking powder or even poisons passed off as the genuine article). It would extract from today's drug dealing the obscene profits that attract the needy and the greedy and fuel armed violence. And it would put most of those certifiably frightening crystal meth labs out of business once and for all.
Combined with treatment, education and other public-health programs for drug abusers, regulated legalization would make your city or town an infinitely healthier place to live and raise a family.
It would make being a cop a much safer occupation, and it would lead to greater police accountability and improved morale and job satisfaction.
But wouldn't regulated legalization lead to more users and, more to the point, drug abusers? Probably, though no one knows for sure — our leaders are too timid even to broach the subject in polite circles, much less to experiment with new policy models. My own prediction? We'd see modest increases in use, negligible increases in abuse.
The demand for illicit drugs is as strong as the nation's thirst for bootleg booze during Prohibition. It's a demand that simply will not dry up. Whether to find God, heighten sex, relieve pain, drown one's sorrows or simply feel good, people throughout the millenniums have turned to mood- and mind-altering substances.
They're not about to stop, no matter what their government says or does. It's time to accept drug use as a right of adult Americans, treat drug abuse as a public-health problem and end the madness of an unwinnable war.
Are YOU a Bunghole?