Urine test for welfare email - WTF?

Just received this from a friend:



My response:
E:
Except for pilots, bus, truck and train drivers, doctors and people who's performance could actually threaten someone's life, I take great issue with random drug testing. Even with it, it appears that the "War on Drugs" is being lost on a daily basis. And many people are caught up in the hysteria.
The whole concept of urine testing to get assistance? We give people assistance because they have problems, some of which are drug related. It's a strawman argument.

He came back with:
"Sorry, but I do disagree with you on that one. The days of a government $$$ hand-out, with no strings attached, are long gone.

Education is the only real way out of poverty, but, though little might be done to change the course of the unmarried, welfare mom's life, at this point in time, how does the government still support her while at the same time ensuring that her own children both remain in school and keep diligent in their studies, so that the cycle of poverty isn't perpetuated??? Do we tie the receipt of the mom's public assistance to the children's school attendance? I don’t believe that's ever likely to occur, as most will think it too draconian, but regular drug testing as a prerequisite for public aid, is not, in my mind, out of the question.

The government, and we, the taxpayers, have every right to expect that public assistance, in any area, be it private or corporate, is being spent as intended. Faulty though they may be, there are at least some checks and verifications for most instances of so-called corporate 'welfare', but the urine test idea seems like a pretty feasible concept for the private/individual sector. I would even go so far as to recommend it for those who might receive government educational grants or scholarships, at least for any recipients of the same who receive these funds directly into their own hands, rather than being paid straight into school accounts.

As a strong believer in the redemptive power of 'honest labor', I'm also for the idea of doing community work in exchange for public aid. Anything so that such aid is no longer viewed as a government 'freebie' with no strings attached. Of course, there will always be those who, for various reasons, are deserving of whatever help society can afford to give them, without any qualifications, but, for those others, I see nothing wrong with their making certain 'guarantees' regarding remaining clean and sober, or receiving public monies in exchange for civic labor, the same as they would in a 'real' job."

He makes some good points, but I still disagree that random or non random drug testing is a good road to go down. It's "mission creep" and yet another intrusion into peoples lives.

Thoughts?
Has anyone else gotten this email, which on third reading I'm beginning to view as pernicious bullshit.

most of the beneficiaries of welfare are children and old ladies.
Why does he want to get his hands on urine from children and old ladies?

Let's have a pool on the results!

They're sucking the taxpayers dry. The least they could do is take random drug tests.

FWIW I am very much opposed to drug testing in the workplace, except in situations where safety is clearly an issue.

If he has to pass a drug test, why should welfare recipients not? The answer is that he should not have to pass a urine test.

No worries for him, don't ya know? Selfish repuke...

Edited for typo

baggies after his last trip abroad.

Doesn't he think its more important that our President is not a drug addict than whether someone on welfare is?

An old debunked myth. SOME drugs make you lazy, but not all.

our tax money shouldn't we have the CEO's and all the board of directors line up and take a urine test. Anybody that does nothing and draws 400 million dollars of OUR money sure needs more than a urine test. They need a brain scan.

Beyond that, this guy's central assumption is typical Rush Limbot White Republican Cubicle Drone Fantasy: That there are millions and millions of "deadbeats" "on the dole" living high (really high, apparently) on the hog on his hard-earned tax dollars.

Yeah. Just like there are millions of women running around pregnant for 8 months and then getting late term abortions because they "look fat". Just like mean atheist commie public school teachers cackle as they snatch christmas presents and bibles out of the hands of tots at lunchtime. :eyes:

The reality, Jack, is that your tax dollars go for shit like a half trillion a year Military-Industrial complex and a $40 Billion a year (not counting costs of incarceration) "war on drugs". And far and away the most costly and dangerous drug in terms of health and lost productivity is alcohol. Does Mr. Email propose alcohol testing, too? Does he think that a Halliburton exec who has a cocktail on saturday night should be precluded from getting any government money? Or is it just the straight A college student with a student loan who smokes a joint once a month and fails a piss test?

I'd say this: If he wants drug (including alcohol and nicotine) testing for EVERYONE who gets money from the government, I'd say fine- see how well that goes over- but I would ask if that means we can also stop spending $40 Billion a year locking up harmless pot smokers, and waging "war" on the choices of consenting adults who aren't being paid by the public.

than any of Reagan's imagined "welfare queens in cadillacs" ever was or would be.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

They already do.

Do to the demands of your oil company's, all service companies are required to do mandatory drug testing. This has been standard practice for years. Most of this is pushed by insurance providers.

college student, then god-dammit I don't want lockheed, bechtel, or Halliburton execs, who are paid in public money, indulging in usage of the most societally damaging and dangerous drug, alcohol--- whether it's on their time or ours. I don't care if it's one cocktail on friday night, and I don't care if has diddly squat to do with their performance at their job.

After all, there is NO SUCH THING AS RECREATIONAL DRUG USE. :eyes:

It is so ridiculous to think that this guy can lord it over another because he has a job and pays taxes.

I hope to hell he never needs any assistance in his life. Someone might put restrictions on it.

don't collect welfare. If you need to get public money to survive, you shouldn't be spending it on drugs. The same goes for anything other than rent, utilities, and food.

:eyes:

I had a thread the other day without one.

-Hoot

That is welfare in its most common form, aid for families with dependent children, used to be called AFDC or ADC and now it's in its new and time limited form known as TANF.

So the mother had a joint last weekend (didn't pay for it, a friend shared) the kids go without electricity this month?

Even if one believes that a drug test should be used to screen welfare applicants, the cost of testing every applicant would exceed any 'savings' achieved through denials.

And any time a homeless person asks for some change, we should just hold out the cup. And when indigent people and those on welfare come to the emergency room: here's your cup. (No, we're not checking for disease, just your worthiness to receive assistance. Stop grabbing your chest and pee.)

People who resent "giving handouts" should take a look at just how much of their precious dollars are even going to welfare. They act like it's some kind of party and they're footin' the bill, takin' money out of their own fat babies' mouths. Best hope your company doesn't decide that people in China are less hassle and outsource you right out of the workforce.

:grr:

But the blood's in the water now. I personally think that most drugs should be legalized, but if you need public assistance for your kids, they should be your priority.

Bear in mind that without drug testing, the average tenure on welfare is under two years. People sometimes cycle on and off it for years while trying to get back on their feet. Some people would need to be tested every few months because of this cycling The cost of drug testing would not be insignificant because of the number of annual applications. I don't have the data handy, but this is a policy area where I knew and worked with national nonpartisan experts on welfare costs.

But back to making your kids your priority. If the parent smokes a little weed (admittedly illegal and not setting a good example) and gets dinged in a drug test, denying benefits hurts the kids. Period. There is no way to avoid that. Even if the state took custody the kids would be harmed by the separation and possibly by the adjustment to a new living arrangement, if the state had foster care available.
So, by attempting to punish the adult, the state is punishing the children. Is that good public policy? Does it really make sense to realize a short term reduction in welfare costs, recognizing that it is not necessarily a savings because of the offset of the cost of drug testing?

what a ridiculous fucking statement to make. Did you hear that on Rush? Cite evidence that welfare recipients are spending their money on illicit drugs. Enjoy your stay. :eyes:

what ever than you are. It must feel good to be you. Life is so black and white.

and the most socially detrimental drug:

Namely, lets strap breathalyzers around the necks of every Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed executive, to make sure they're not spending any of OUR money on booze.

...have traces of cocaine on them.

http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp

they always go after the poor and powerless.

Tell your Friend when * does hid dodo, the secret service immediately grab it and put it in a plastic bag.

What a high honoring position that must be, but they are Wacke jobs too, to even do such a thing. If only I had such a position, I would immediately send it to the Uk's Independent and ever one else who hates *

Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs
spending for low-income programs by more than
three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion

Individuals and families must demonstrate need
to receive benefits, while corporations with billions
of dollars in annual income remain on the federal dole

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/tax/corporate_welfare.htm

But it's only liberals who want to have some oversight of corporations.

That's what I was told anyway.

The difference is that there is no invasion of privacy that is being institutionalized in this procedure.

Urine tests, on the other hand, are an invasion of privacy.

I don't think drug tests should be used for regular employment either, but logically, I would think that if you were testing for employment it would be logical to also test for welfare recipients, and then offer drug counseling at the same time.

I'd ask the guy why he wants such a big government.

he should quit and get a better job.

than to stick their weasly noses in other folk's business.

a.) As someone with a severe mental illness and someone who has been homeless, I disagree with the whole concept of "lazy". There are mentally ill people, depressed people, etc. getting benefits but few "lazy" people. No one wants to be worthless. That is a Right Wing myth.

b.) Why shouldn't someone who does drugs get their benefits? People on drugs shouldn't be allowed to eat? After all, booze is ten times more destructive than pot...a million times...and it's legal and no one would say you shouldn't get your benefits if you drink beer. ...and you can buy NEITHER beer nor drugs with food stamps.
Hard-core drug addiction, heroin addiction, etc. is also an illness. Addiction is an illness. They should help them overcome that addiction, not deprive them of food.

c.) This Pig should confront their own company and they should grow a heart and they should take Psychology 101.
Lee

jobs, disabled, children and elderly. This person is listening to the rush limpballs for his info.

No food stamps? No food? Let them starve and freeze? I'd have to know what happens to people who fail before I could bother reading too much about this. People don't stop being human beings if they have an addiction problem.

test too since we pay their salaries.