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.

 

Why can't we require drug tests in order to draw welfare?

page: 13
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
One more thought relative to drugs... In theory we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Though some here are disgruntled by the ones who pursue happiness in drugs on their dime...why aren't they equally disgruntled by those who pursue happiness in the form of a full belly? (Yes, some here want to disband Welfare altogether, but many are not going that route and want to drug-test and castrate recipients...)


A person has the right to a full belly, I suppose, but that doesn't mean they should be able to purchase whatever the heck they want; there was some discussion of that earlier in the thread.

In theory there also has to be an understanding that your pursuit of happiness does not extend so far as to encroach upon other people's happiness or wellbeing.

Do you have the right to smoke some "M" because it makes you happy? Under current laws, no, but in theory, sure, so long as you can do so and remain prodcutive, yes.

However...

Do you have the right to get drunk, and drive home, because it makes you happy, and endanger everyone else on the road?

No.

Do you have the right to cook "MT" in your shed, because you would e njoy the high and the profits from selling, even though it would contaminate the entire area and possibly even explode?

No.

Do you have the right to get hopped up on "MT" or "P" or "CC" and go on a violent rampage, because it makes you happy?

No.

Do you have the right to sit around on "H" while your kids run around filthy and unsepervise, because the hit makes you feel happy?

No.




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freakaloin


With a billion dollars, that guy could give two thousand dollars to half of a million people and single handedly wipe out homelessness in this country.


how would giving someone 2,000 dollars keep them from being homeless?


In m ost areas it would be enough to b uy a decent set of clothes, a bus pass, some food, and deposits for a small appartment.

It's no gurantee they would stay employed and housed, though.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

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.


Is this an invasion on our liberties?



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.


From the standpoint that responsible recreational drugs use is intrinsically bad.

Is it right that anyone can judge you for getting 'high' on a Saturday night? Morally maybe, though I reject that form of moralism, but in relation to being able to do your job properly or attend an interview it is of no relevance whatsoever.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga


However, in order to get state funds for not having a job, you need to show proof of not being afflicted with personal choices which prevent you from actually acquiring a job.




I'm a little confused. Are you saying that's how it is in your state, or that's how you would like it to be?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Best Idea I've heard all week!!!! Star and Flag get those lazy bastards tested and we'll see the numbers drop faster then a criple from a tyson punch.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

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.


THIS GUY IS SO RUDE AND IGNORANT :] SIMPLETON =] PARASITE



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   



THIS GUY IS SO RUDE AND IGNORANT :] SIMPLETON =] PARASITE



I think he's following me. He's made snipish comments like that on some of my other threads, too.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
i sure in the hell don't want more excessive control by the government and almost all these posts in this thread advocate the idea of allowing the government to even further pry into the private lives of people. Another part of you are claiming that almost everyone on welfare are criminals and drug dealers! I thing this thread should be closed because it has become very ignorant and I have not seen any reliable sources to back up many of the peoples claims that drug testing would be a good thing for recipients of welfare! Say no to more government intrusion , even if its to protect other citizens that you may think is abusing the system. Sounds like a bunch of NWO crap to me!

Peace



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
So because someone suffers from the disease of addiction, they should be refused welfare? If you do this there would be a huge increase in crime. How about when someone goes on welfare they get tested, if they piss hot, then they have a choice:
1. You can accept some help to get off i.e. detox/treatment initially and then some sort of after care with a 12 step program or other out patient services.

2. If you refuse the help then you don't get welfare

Simply denying an addict his cheque is not going to make him quit using drugs, it's going to make him get the money elsewhere and 99% of the time that isn't gonna be by getting a job. Why not try and help them instead of just sending them away to get high and commit crime. Not to mention that a lot of services for help getting off drugs arn't available to someone who is not on some sort of government assistance or can pay for it themselves, so what happens if down the road that person that you refused welfare decides they want to get off, but can't pay for the help they need, and can't have welfare do it cause they are still using?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 



Why would we care if someone on Welfare has a drink? Does being on welfare make them less a person than the rest of the population?
Why should anyone care if another person has a drink?
I can understand a sense of concern if a person has a drinking problem, but I don’t believe it should be of any interest or concern if they drink in moderation. A person on welfare probably deserves a drink, maybe two!

I completely fail to understand this thinking of yours, please explain your motives.

Do you just not like people that have a drink now and again? I have a full bar in my home, stocked with every kind of alcohol. Yet, I don't think that I or my wife have had a drink since new years eve. Would I not qualify for welfare in your opinion? Would you not like me because of my bar?

I really want to know. I am trying to understand why it means something to you, to punish a person already down on their luck in this manner.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I think when Congress is in session they should have to take pee tests and see what their on when they're making decisions.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by eaganthorn
 


In my OP I was reffering to hard drug use, but I ran out of time to edit that. Later on other people added the alcohol.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Oh I've read up to page 5 and feel I have to respond. Welfare, is a complicated area, and the OP suggestion is, IMHO very unreasonable. Firstly I believe that the majority of drug abuse is a societal problem firstly and a personal problem second. People living in very difficult circumstances, in distressed communities, are surrounded by many forms of abuse and addiction, their poorly resourced medical services push prescription meds on them, the US is sinking slowly under the weight of overweight/overmedicated apathetic people, those living on welfare have to reach up to touch the bottom. The idea of testing them for drug use could only have come from a resentful and fearful middle class wire walker who spends their time looking over their own fat shoulder begrudgingly.
Despite what many on this thread have suggested, the OPs idea is brutal and less than useless but so very American.
I recall seeing a documentary a couple of months ago on TV about some incredibly fat people, the programme unfortunately had a voyeuristic slant, but the people seemed to epitomise modern society, particularly American society, which Irish society (where I'm from) quickly mimics.
This is how modern western society operates: I want more, and then I want some more, I want more than them, why can't I have more than them. I want everything. I want to buy everything and eat everything and f**k everything. And then I want some more, I'D LOVE MORE AND MORE AND MORE. Give them less give me more. The doctor said I have problems, he wants more too, he needs more, they're supposed to have more. Walmart sell s**t food to people because they want more, they need it. They need to spray s**t on it to make it last for weeks because they want to make more money. The oil companies HAVE TO increase the price of oil because they want more.
Mopus, I feel for you mate, all that success, all that money, boy. You should be the poster boy for the new age. With the catch phrase: Life gets cheap the More you Get.

Scorched Earth should be grounded for about 6 months



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


If it's hard drug use, then they are liable to commit crime to fund their addiction. Rather than cutting welfare and leading to more crime, why not try treating them?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
reply to post by asmeone2
 


If it's hard drug use, then they are liable to commit crime to fund their addiction. Rather than cutting welfare and leading to more crime, why not try treating them?


My idea behind the drug testing was first to identify who needs the help, and second, to prevent them from having a govert-cushioned way of life that prevents them from hitting "rock bottom" and actually seeking that help.

I don't have so much of a problem with my tax dollars helping people-- I take a major issue with it, though, when people use them to laze off or perpetuate an addiction.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by willywagga
 


I don't understand. You berate me for my suggestion, which is intended to curb our culture's demanding for freebees, but then go on about how you can't see people askign for more and more? Please, pick a side.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2

My idea behind the drug testing was first to identify who needs the help, and second, to prevent them from having a govert-cushioned way of life that prevents them from hitting "rock bottom" and actually seeking that help.


Agreed.



I don't have so much of a problem with my tax dollars helping people-- I take a major issue with it, though, when people use them to laze off or perpetuate an addiction.


The sad problem in that is that you need to do both. One of the major problems with people coming off hard drugs is the craving at the same time as having to keep away from your drug friends. In other words having to rebuild your life, with all the depression that entails (which leads to drug use) whilst still craving the drug very strongly.
This was something that drug services in Liverpool, UK in the 1980s tried to deal with. With heroin addicts, instead of providing methodone, they gave the real thing, medical grade so least side effects. In return the patient had to turn up to two councilling sessions a week to quote 'bore' (and de-glam) them off it. In the meantime they were left free to get a job and totally revolutionise their friend relationships before they came off the drug. It was the most successful method up to that date, but was stopped because it became a media issue and Margaret Thatcher had to move (within the norms of that time). But in final answer, you need to treat, but also pay for some sweets.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


We suggested earlier in the thread having 10 or 15 percent of the food stamp money usable for whatever food items the carrier wanted, the rest would have to be spent on an 'allowable' list.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by redled
 


We suggested earlier in the thread having 10 or 15 percent of the food stamp money usable for whatever food items the carrier wanted, the rest would have to be spent on an 'allowable' list.


Nah, our benefits are paid in cash. I think we're going to be talking cross purpose if we continue.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by redled
 


We suggested earlier in the thread having 10 or 15 percent of the food stamp money usable for whatever food items the carrier wanted, the rest would have to be spent on an 'allowable' list.


Nah, our benefits are paid in cash. I think we're going to be talking cross purpose if we continue.


If you are in the UK then I don't know how it works for you.

Here, at least in TX, they issue WIC which covers baby formula, milk, cheese, eggs, and a few other things. They also issue food stamp cards which buy any old thing on the shelf. I had been arguing for a long time that the food stamps should be restructured more along the li nes of WIC.




top topics



 
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join