I'd like to pass along a thought.

Many jobs require random drug screens for their employees--if they do not pass, they lose the job. Most require them before hire, too.

Why can't our government require drug screens of people at the time that they apply for welfare, and at random intervals after they are accepted into the program?

I think if you are going to ask for "help getting on your feet," you should be willing to make the comittment, and part number one of that is staying off of drugs.

I have an even better question.

Can anyone please show me the Constitutional Amendment (which, for any that are ignorant, merely lays out what is PERMITTED to the federal government, all other rights being limited to the State) which allows food stamps, HUD, Department of Education, etc.?

Thank you.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I have an even better question.

Can anyone please show me the Constitutional Amendment (which, for any that are ignorant, merely lays out what is PERMITTED to the federal government, all other rights being limited to the State) which allows food stamps, HUD, Department of Education, etc.?

Thank you.

Welfare is distributed on a state level.

Ideally we wouldn't have it, but we do, and I doubt it will go anywhere. I am proposing that as one type of reform that mgiht be enacted.

Please don't snub my question like that, it's very rude.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by asmeone2]

well the reason why is because then there would not be anyone on welfare and then we wouldnt have a bunch of people stuck in a fear cycle unable to realize their true power and educate themselves and then rise up sooner than needed to overthrow the ever more present big brother.

good question though.

Originally posted by 911fnord
well the reason why is because then there would not be anyone on welfare and then we wouldnt have a bunch of people stuck in a fear cycle unable to realize their true power and educate themselves and then rise up sooner than needed to overthrow the ever more present big brother.

good question though.

Hey Fnord, I'm in Dallas too.

I don't think that everyone on welfare is on drugs, so the drawers wouldn't utterly disappear.

Those people would continue to use drugs with or without the welfare, so I don't think there would be an uprising because they would educate themselves... maybe because they didn't get the payout, though.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by asmeone2]

The most commonly and widely abused drug is alcohol. Certain forms of employment screen for other chronic drugs because it might affect your doing of the job.

In far north western Australia there's been a recent 'intervention' of sorts to stamp out alcohol abuse in remote Aboriginal communities - the cycle is welfare day comes, all the money is spent on booze, and everyone waits for next pay day.

All alcohol going into the communities is accounted for by the bottle shops by taking the names of people who buy it and putting limits on how much they can buy.

The pay day- > booze cycle though is also among some of the wider community - but to suggest the same would be done in metropolitan areas would tick a lot of people off.

As for screening for drugs, it'd upset a lot of civil liberty people. It's in an invasion of privacy - but I agree with the idea behind it.

Especially the dealers who get welfare!

Well... Why would we WANT to do drug testing?

First, it costs money.

Second, it's highly unreliable. How would you feel about denying someone benefits merely because they ate a poppy seed bagel? (Mythbusters did a segment where they tested a staff member and got a negative, then the guy ate a poppy seed bagel. An hour or so later they tested him, and... He tested positive for opiates.)

Third, one of the big tactics the NWO has is the War on Drugs. They produce drugs, ship them in, sell them to the street dealers (financing black ops), and then arrest the kids and low-level dealers. On top of that, they can justify police raids, wire tapping, property seizure without due process, racial harassment and intimidation, and other social ills that give them more power.

Fourth, several of the "illegal" drugs are not just benign but good for you. I will not spell it out, for fear this will go RATS, but the primary one that is can be grown and starts with "M."

So you tell me why ANYONE should be drug tested.

All alcohol going into the communities is accounted for by the bottle shops by taking the names of people who buy it and putting limits on how much they can buy.

The pay day- > booze cycle though is also among some of the wider community - but to suggest the same would be done in metropolitan areas would tick a lot of people off.

As for screening for drugs, it'd upset a lot of civil liberty people. It's in an invasion of privacy - but I agree with the idea behind it.

Especially the dealers who get welfare!

That is very intersting that it is put into practice like that, and the double standard.

As I said in the OP, the very act of drawing welfare is inviting the govt. into your lap...

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Well... Why would we WANT to do drug testing?

First, it costs money.

Second, it's highly unreliable. How would you feel about denying someone benefits merely because they ate a poppy seed bagel? (Mythbusters did a segment where they tested a staff member and got a negative, then the guy ate a poppy seed bagel. An hour or so later they tested him, and... He tested positive for opiates.)

Third, one of the big tactics the NWO has is the War on Drugs. They produce drugs, ship them in, sell them to the street dealers (financing black ops), and then arrest the kids and low-level dealers. On top of that, they can justify police raids, wire tapping, property seizure without due process, racial harassment and intimidation, and other social ills that give them more power.

Fourth, several of the "illegal" drugs are not just benign but good for you. I will not spell it out, for fear this will go RATS, but the primary one that is can be grown and starts with "M."

So you tell me why ANYONE should be drug tested.

1. It cost money but would save a lot more in the end.

2. That can be solved by testing the hair instead of the urine. This shows cumulitive drug use, not what is currently in the body.

3 & 4-- Agreed but that is really tangential to this thread. Even if they were legal and the govt. steps out, most of the problems would still remain.

Originally posted by asmeone2

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I have an even better question.

Can anyone please show me the Constitutional Amendment (which, for any that are ignorant, merely lays out what is PERMITTED to the federal government, all other rights being limited to the State) which allows food stamps, HUD, Department of Education, etc.?

Thank you.

Welfare is distributed on a state level.

Ideally we wouldn't have it, but we do, and I doubt it will go anywhere. I am proposing that as one type of reform that mgiht be enacted.

Please don't snub my question like that, it's very rude.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by asmeone2]

Excuse me, but where is "welfare" on my list? I'm talking about FEDERAL stuff here, which, in a way, does kind of hijack your thread, and that wasn't my intent.

What I DID intend was to show you that we should be taking care of Federal issues first, then we can focus on state ones.

Welfare doesn't cost much of anything... we spend as much in a couple of weeks in Iraq as people get in food stamps every year...

and I'm pro military... but respectively to the uS budget it isn't much of an issue...

and frankly, why force people with personal problems into the workplace...drug use isn't the cause it's a symptom of other problems... these people need dope and they need welfare, some people really have just had no luck in life... people don't choose to be an overall mess they just are...

There won't ever be some flood of people looking to be on section 8 housing and taking food stamps to survive... no more than there is... and it keeps those people under control to a degree rather than desperate to hel them out...

everyone no matter how screwed up deserves shelter and food

Excuse me, but where is "welfare" on my list? I'm talking about FEDERAL stuff here, which, in a way, does kind of hijack your thread, and that wasn't my intent.

What I DID intend was to show you that we should be taking care of Federal issues first, then we can focus on state ones.

Start your own thread then, I would totally support a libertarian revolution but here I want to talk about things as they are.

Originally posted by asmeone2
I'd like to pass along a thought.

Many jobs require random drug screens for their employees--if they do not pass, they lose the job. Most require them before hire, too.

Why can't our government require drug screens of people at the time that they apply for welfare, and at random intervals after they are accepted into the program?

I think if you are going to ask for "help getting on your feet," you should be willing to make the comittment, and part number one of that is staying off of drugs.

how do you apply for welfare?

I have been asking the same thing myself for years.

As it is there are many people abusing the system here in Australia, and quite a lot of them sit around playing their playstation on pot and anything else they can afford with no intention of finding honest work and the only form of depression they suffer from is either from coming down or not being able to afford to score.

If depression or bad luck is their problem, medicare provides free (taxpayer funded) medical help and counseling. In fact there a lot of ‘dole bludgers’ on Zoloft as well as weed.

It is an unfortunate cycle often passed on from parents that needs to be broken.

how do you apply for welfare?

It differs state by state, but usually you have to go to the office with documents to prove your identity and your income, and they sign you up based on that.