Urine Test

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2008 11:12 AM GMT
    Someone forwarded this to me, What do you guys think???


    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 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 by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2008 2:27 PM GMT

    Hey Redbull!

    That must be interesting work. Many many millions of jobs don't require urine tests.

    What to do if a welfare recipient fails a urine test? If they are cut-off they may turn to crime to live. Police officers are more expensive. Many would spiral all the way down and get real sick. Medical services are more expensive.

    Welfare is already an agonizingly low amount of money. Also, if you're at a party where the air is redolent of pot smoke, your urine test can easily come up positive, as well as from some meds which contain codeine etc.

    Both of us sure understand your frustration, though. We're big taxpayers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2008 2:33 PM GMT
    redbull;

    I think you are on the right track.

    I would also like the purson appointed a legal guardian by a court. This individual would make decisions on spending money, etc. This person would be able to help this person to stand on his or her own two feet.

    I also believe those getting assistance should not be able to vote. No one should be able to vote to use the police power of the state to take money from someone else and give it themselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2008 4:10 PM GMT
    I don't get it why Social Welfare is such an issue for Americans. It's not like they're starving themselves to pay their taxes... icon_rolleyes.gif

    Way poorer countries have welfare and you don't see them complaining about how their hard earned taxes are getting squandered on homeless immigrants. Wake up, America.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2008 4:44 PM GMT
    Sedative saidI don't get it why Social Welfare is such an issue for Americans. It's not like they're starving themselves to pay their taxes... icon_rolleyes.gif

    Way poorer countries have welfare and you don't see them complaining about how their hard earned taxes are getting squandered on homeless immigrants. Wake up, America.


    Amen. I am so sick of this crap.
    Being selfish only creates more problems between the ""haves" and "have nots".
    I love all of these generic suggestions and first grade ideologies being passed off as a moment of genius. Ultimately , we share so little of what we do actually have that it is disgusting.
    If we withheld basic freedoms (voting) and basic human rights (food) from a sect of people the government deemed unworthy based on lifestyle choices , we would have to live in a total policed state to deal with the chaos.
    Sounds like an awesome idea so that your pay check can be .15 cents more a week.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2008 6:16 PM GMT
    There's one huge flaw in all of that. You'd be potentially penalizing children who's parents tested positive for drugs. It just wouldn't work.

    There's also something strange about the thought that in order to qualify for poverty you have to first pass a drug test. We'd be continuing a process that is disgusting which is placing everyone at a certain status. How much lower do we go as human beings when we actually look at another and say they aren't even worthy of poverty? If you fail then what? Do we pay for rehab? Do we just push them aside?

    I think the fact that we even have poverty and homeless in this country is beyond shameful when we seem to always come up with Millions of dollars to help out another nation in need.

    It's only natural to look at where our money is going and question it but I'm not sure if the portion going for welfare is a problem. I'm much more concerned about paying leaders who sit on their asses giving themselves raises but then can't seem to come up with a proper budget plan on time for the entire state.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2008 11:25 PM GMT
    jsttennis77 said:

    I think the fact that we even have poverty and homeless in this country is beyond shameful when we seem to always come up with Millions of dollars to help out another nation in need.

    It's only natural to look at where our money is going and question it but I'm not sure if the portion going for welfare is a problem. I'm much more concerned about paying leaders who sit on their asses giving themselves raises but then can't seem to come up with a proper budget plan on time for the entire state



    I couldnt agree more to this also!! You guys brought up some really good points.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2008 11:36 PM GMT
    Some people might be happier to see the sidewalks lined with the starving-to-death masses that would exist if not for the little extra we pay in taxes to prevent that a little bit (it still happens).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2008 11:37 PM GMT
    This email has been around for years. But I agree. I have a friend that does NOTHING. She has three kids and has no desire to work. She drinks, smokes and has sex. She is getting welfare and guys give her money. She buys her kids expensive clothes and toys (ipod, sidekick and camera phone for her 11 year olds b-day). Why are we working so hard and putting money in her pocket? Her rent is less than $10 and she spends money like it was water. She sickens me.....maybe that is why I havent talked to her in 3 weeks. Trash.....Sorry went off a bit...personal experiance....im good now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2008 11:59 PM GMT
    First off there is going to be overhead administrative costs associated with running a nationwide urine test network in order to reach everyone receiving such aid (who do you think is going to pay for the test -- certainly not the impoverished individual seeking aid in the first place). Then there is the question on the accuracy, and steps taken to avoid wrongly penalizing false positive results. Then jsttennis77 hit on a point that I totally agree with that in doing so we would be hurting their kids as well when the government decides to rescind financial assistance. Unfortunately there will be some who will exploit this system and I am not happy to see that. I do agree that our welfare system can be improved and made more efficient but this sort of wide scale random drug testing seems to have more cons than pros.