It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guess how many welfare recipients tested positive in Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s drug test?

page: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: luthier

Like I said do it like the military... say 5 people per district (or how ever this is divided) per quarter, and everybody wins...


They're not trying to incentivize people to stay off drugs though, the military is. They're trying to find drug addicts and reduce welfare costs by kicking them off. Random testing is bad for that because it makes people play within the rules to keep getting paid. Large one time screenings that find people and kick them off is what they're after.




posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Big deal...you know how many people in middle managent and upper who smoke weed or are on pain killers?

People are people...and yes I am in management..smoke all the weed they want...keeps people relaxed..

However, I'm not feeling more hardcore drugs...

Will it be ok when it's legally more available and it get's taxed? Would you begrudge someone on welfare for a case a beer a week? What's the limit?


Percentage would be about the same in adults. If he wanted to do something to solve thr problem allow them to get jobs and not loose their assistance. If they try to better themselves they are punished and actually lose money.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

I agree completely



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Funny, I'm working middle class thst has never tested positive for drugs year after year. If its the stereotype the poor use drugs, why are the working middle class tested for drugs? I have to be drug tested to keep my job. What is the big deal about being drug tested to receive tax money from my paychecks? Note, probably shouldn't do any drugs that you wouldn't want a medical surgeon high while performing your medical procedure. Or your children's bus drive.
edit on 23-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Several problems

So these drug users what happens to them and their kids?

Can you control what a surgeon does in his free time?

Your seriously advocating that a company has the right to control your personal behaviour?

What are you a slave?

Oh I get it the old I have to do it so everyone should attitude.

So basically lets spend more money on benefits by testing (cost) and then spend more money when cps takes controll of the kids living on the streets.


I think a lot of people have no idea what the forefathers were actually writing about.

They may not believe in big gov but they certainly believed in freedom and liberty for all.

The problem is you getting drug tested and your employer trying to control yoir private life.

If your f up at work you should be fired. If you have a drink or smoke a joint (in legal states) it's none of your employers business. Neither are your political views, sexuality, or marriage.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

So, ambulance driver's should not be drug free? How about welders for structural steel or nuclear pipping? Commercial pilots. Its often just part of the job. Like pilots have to pass a physical, have no heart issues or issues with diabetes.
edit on 23-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I can't condone depriving children of food and shelter because their parents are drug addicts.


edit on 23-6-2016 by Bone75 because: clarity



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: TheRedneck

What makes you think that someone else hasn't been through that and worse?

I never said otherwise.


It is a sad story and all, but what do I owe you?

Absolutely nothing. I never said you did. What I was indicating is that government assistance is not always the result of 'bad decisions' on the part of the recipient. Sometimes, and I say oftentimes lately, it is the result of bad decisions on the part of government, or the result of life's unforeseeable vagrancies.


I know, I am a terrible human being because I don't care about every person that I don't know. I take care of my own as best I can and I am not ashamed for not worrying about every Tom, Dick and Harriet that I don't know and am not responsible for.

Everything I have seen from you thus far indicates you do care about Tom, Dick, and Harry... and John, and Ian, and David, and Jerry too, apparently. You care enough to begrudge them the basics of survival: food, decent shelter, a chance to improve themselves.

I want to lift others up. You want to keep them down. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but extinguishing your neighbor's candle doesn't make yours shine brighter.

Actually, that was incorrect. I don't mind telling you at all.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Correct when those people are at home they can do drugs.

The real reason is insurance.

How exactly does smoking a doobie or drinking some beer effect a welder the next day at work? Thats just not how the metabolism of the drug effects work.

Is it OK for a welder to be on say Zoloft or prosac? Because that's something they are on at work.

Also. What do you do with the people testing positive leave them on the sidewalk or put them in jail?
edit on 23-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

That is why child srevices usually takes away children of addicts that cannot function.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Sorry, double post.
edit on 23-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

The drug tests have always been at work or on duty......



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Thats not exactly the case with a drug test is it? If you just smoked a joint with your friends when you have a sitter and you get kicked off benefits that's ok?

Not to mention the cost and emotional damage of kids being raised as wards of the state .

Really a loose loose plan.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: luthier

The drug tests have always been at work or on duty......


Well some drugs like marijuana leave metabolites which don't get you high and stay in your bodies fat for up to 45 days.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Its not in the best interest of everyone for companies to hire the most responsible and proficient candidates. Especially for pilots? Got to grow up sometime....



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know ask elon musk, bill gates, Steve jobs, and millions of other succeful Americans

Can pilots drink alcohol?

Much more serious drug of impairment.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

If they have a prescription for pot, probably not a big deal.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

And they test for alcohol, what is your point?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't think Carl Sagan or Sergey Brin or any of he people I mentioned in the previous post had a medical excuse.

They likes smoking pot and some doing psychedelics. Which are also now being used in medicine and have been shown to amplify your brains power and communication throughout the regions.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: TheRedneck

There you go again, putting words in my mouth.

Not really. I made the same decision as 95% of the population, a decision you branded as a 'bad decision.' In an earlier post you expressed disdain and a dismissal attitude for the indigent because it was the 'result of their own bad decisions.' If you deny assistance to those unable to help themselves, then state that a decision that most of the population would makeep is the reason, you have effectively said that that majority do not deserve a chance to recover.

That's what indigent means: so poor one cannot recover on their own because they can't afford the essentials for survival in society.


No, I believe that we reap what we sow.

I hope not. If true, you will be reaping a lot of disdain and possibly some outright hatred. I don't want to see that happen to anyone, even you.


Most bad decisions do not entail that the person making them is "indigent for the rest of their lives".

True, but some do.


I mentioned earlier that others have had bad times too. I have had them.
I have made bad decisions.
I am living with the results of those bad decisions.
I am not asking others to pay for the results of my bad decisions.
I am not indigent.

The same goes for me. The difference is I am grateful for what I have and do not begrudge others the same opportunities.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join