'Urine or You're Out'

I do not know the source of this information since it was sent to me by a forward, from a forward but whoever wrote it is really thinking.

I agree with this logic 100%.



" Like a lot of folks in this state and others, 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. So here is my Question:

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 rump--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?

I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't."

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Realtruth]

Just because you let corporate America into your toilet and infringe on your rights and privacy does not mean you should grant this beastly govenrment any more power to watch people pee. You should fight to have urinalysis banned.

Originally posted by dashen
Just because you let corporate America into your toilet and infringe on your rights and privacy does not mean you should grant this beastly govenrment any more power to watch people pee. You should fight to have urinalysis banned.

What he said. Instead of falling for ordo ab chaos manipulations that throw populations in on themselves and individuals against each other people need to realise where all this comes from and be more focused and efficient with their resistance.

I am inclined to agree with the OP. If I have to stay clean to stay employed, they should have to stay clean to get state/governement assistance.

However I don't think anyone should be required to get screened unless they have some sort of probable cause, like failure to do your job properly.

I guess the honor system doesn't mean much anymore.

I posted this question a while back, there's about 350 replies so far.

In a nutshell I don't (really) mind helping the people. (the system urgently needs reform but that is another discussion)

However I do NOT want to pay for someone's food and other perks so they can support an addiction to drugs or alcohol.

As for the privacy concerns--these people asked the Govt. to come help them. The Govt. isn't intruding in their lives, they asked them to be there!

Originally posted by Zepherian

Originally posted by dashen
Just because you let corporate America into your toilet and infringe on your rights and privacy does not mean you should grant this beastly govenrment any more power to watch people pee. You should fight to have urinalysis banned.

What he said. Instead of falling for ordo ab chaos manipulations that throw populations in on themselves and individuals against each other people need to realise where all this comes from and be more focused and efficient with their resistance.

I am glad both of you were able to see through this.

It's the mentality of "Divide and Conquer"

I to see no reason for giving up our rights, because we have lost many of them, but people asking for assistance need to get off their asses.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Realtruth]

I can see both sides of the arguement.

Usually it is up to the company if they want to do drug screening or not. While I understand the infringement on privacy, there are occupations where people just need to be clean.

And the government shouldn't get involved. But they are, they do the enforcing.

While I think it is a good idea to screen welfare recipients, I think it should be with stipulations. Not automatic rejection. For one, most have children, and need the welfare, and I don't want children to be left out. No children should be left out, ever.

So that being said, if the parent fails, then they need to be put into a treatment program. This may solve the problem of why they can't work anyways, if that is the case. Either way the children win.

So I am going to go with a slight yes. But I will keep a toe on the fence for the privacy issue.

Originally posted by dashen
Just because you let corporate America into your toilet and infringe on your rights and privacy does not mean you should grant this beastly govenrment any more power to watch people pee. You should fight to have urinalysis banned.

Keep that in mind when your kids school bus driver, high on crack, drives thru a red light and plows into a tractor-trailer.

I have never had to take a urine test for employment as I have always worked for family and also had my own business.

Nor Have I ever required anyone in my employment to have a urine test.

My thoughts are that if you do the job I hired you to do and you please me with your work then it is not my business what you do when you are not on my clock.

Welfare recipients are on the tax payers clock and I believe they should be required to be urine tested and denied help if they test dirty.

Why should tax payers pay for anybodies addiction?

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by dashen
Just because you let corporate America into your toilet and infringe on your rights and privacy does not mean you should grant this beastly govenrment any more power to watch people pee. You should fight to have urinalysis banned.

Keep that in mind when your kids school bus driver, high on crack, drives thru a red light and plows into a tractor-trailer.

Fearmongering, due dilligence on the part of an employer in hiring practices can be preformed without invasive practices such as drug tests. Especially since most of the drugs they test for were perfectly legal, and medically touted just a 100 years ago.
And yes welfare queens should get off their asses and get a McJob if necessary.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by dashen]

I have no relevant opinion to post except to say that the title of this thread made me chuckle. Thanks - I was having a really bad day!

Originally posted by asmeone2
I posted this question a while back, there's about 350 replies so far.

In a nutshell I don't (really) mind helping the people. (the system urgently needs reform but that is another discussion)

However I do NOT want to pay for someone's food and other perks so they can support an addiction to drugs or alcohol.

As for the privacy concerns--these people asked the Govt. to come help them. The Govt. isn't intruding in their lives, they asked them to be there!

I suppose scrips and alcohol are fine though, right?

I have a better idea? Rather than you busy bodies create even more regulations, that only we must follow, try following the ones we have? The ones in The Constitution? Many of us have interpreted those rules diligently and found that supporting an illegal conflict, or two, financially or otherwise, is treasonous! So are bailout taxation strategies for foreign businesses in this so called free market capitalism system. You are fine with going against those rules, but you just won't tolerate your unemployed neighbors doing anything you don't agree with? You do realize that when those people worked and paid taxes, they paid unemployment taxes that most definitely added to much more than they will ever receive? Those people don't owe you a damn thing!

On the other hand, bailout recipients will owe taxpayers forever! Traitors and crooks should be killed, or at minimum, be deported from this country. But you don't even mention them? No problem whatsoever giving your dollars to crooked foreign banks and slimy politicians, while you join them as traitors, but not your fellow man, when he's down? You are very confused on the debt here. Because your neighbor would be "dirty" if he failed a drug test? Your true enemies are in D.C. and you somehow think they are above our law, or better than the rest of us?

I have not paid federal tax for over two years now. I own my company, so it's easy. You my friend are committing treason when you support crimes against the world! How could you possibly twist those facts? Why the hell would you kick a man, that is absolutely on your team, when he's down on his luck? You must feel like such a good slave? Don't worry, if I can, I will help all your neighbors regardless of their choice of recreation!

Peace!

The federal government may not force welfare or SSI recipients to pee in a bottle but disabled veterans have to, under threat of withdrawal of treatment for service connected conditions. .... I have had to do it 4 times in the last 12 months.

Originally posted by hypervigilant
The federal government may not force welfare or SSI recipients to pee in a bottle but disabled veterans have to, under threat of withdrawal of treatment for service connected conditions. .... I have had to do it 4 times in the last 12 months.

That is really BS. I am sorry to hear the a Vet having to take a piss test.

This is really backwards.

Originally posted by hypervigilant
The federal government may not force welfare or SSI recipients to pee in a bottle but disabled veterans have to, under threat of withdrawal of treatment for service connected conditions. .... I have had to do it 4 times in the last 12 months.

Send you to hell and back for nothing but greed. Steal who you were and replace it with something that just don't fit anymore. Basically attach you to Uncle Sams red, white and blue titty for a lifetime of dependency one way or the other. God forbid you find a not so legal way to cope only to find your own brother would throw you in the hole rather than look at you? Nobody seems to mind if you become dependent on their highly profitable drugs? In fact all their "legal drugs" are highly addictive nowadays, and way more dangerous!

The best part though, is where only some used to be addicted to a single, much safer "illegal drug" that was easier to give up. Now everyone, including small children, are hooked on 3-7 hopelessly addictive, fatally dangerous "prescription medications" that are impossible to quit or afford! This is the hard truth folks. Just go down to any intersection of any metropolis in any state of this country, there you will find, not one, but two "legal drug" dealers, some open 24-7 to serve you!

Where once a single Pharmacists used merely a single drawer under the counter to hold in wait the communities filled prescriptions, it has now been replaced with an enormous Prescription Oasis! A roughly 5' high, 8' wide and 15' long super sized filing system of wire baskets filled to capacity at all times with literally hundreds of prescriptions. The single Pharmacist system of the past is extinct and you can now find 4-5 pill pushers hustling around the Oasis and even a drive up station to handle the constant flow more efficiently. It is quite a shameful sight, more so when you notice that a sizable percentage of their customer base is preteen!?

How is it that Americans can ignore the many atrocities like the modern pharmacy, yet set out to harm its own suffering fellowship over issues so petty? So many people on this site desperately trying to figure things out, yet serious issues, right out in the open, in every direction and nothing is even said? The blatant oppression is applied so heavily and has been for so long, it can no longer even be seen?! Shameful disgrace we have become. This BS is directed at US! WE are, or should be, all fighting the same cause! WE solve nothing by fighting each other? NOTHING!!!
Peace!

www.wiretapmag.org...

www.commondreams.org...

www.virginia-organizing.org...

www.wired.com...

[edit on 27-2-2009 by simonecharisse]

Originally posted by hypervigilant
The federal government may not force welfare or SSI recipients to pee in a bottle but disabled veterans have to, under threat of withdrawal of treatment for service connected conditions. .... I have had to do it 4 times in the last 12 months.

That's just not right at all!
Vets should be helped, no conditions. It's like another way for government to shirk responsibility, like they are known for.

As long as one does their work, and not drugs at work but at home off the clock, where is the problem?
Problem is, some substances show in your pee even if you are not under any influence, pee tests only show that you have 'at some point' ingested something.

I've known many users who were great employees, would seem a shame to have to fire people like them.
But that's what happens.
Trying to create a 'stepford' society.

PS, does this thread not violate the new TOS?

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Toadmund]

Zerbst:

If you read the thread I linked you will see that I clearly prefaced it with "I do not want to have welfare, but as long as we must, let's at least reform it..."

Furthermore most welfare comes from state funds, not federal, so if we want to get constitutional here we can say that each state has the right to give or deny welfare under the 10th amendmant.

If you read my posts, I'm also against the bailouts, I don't understand why you are trying to make me out as a traitor who supports them because I linked a thread.

......Continued from my previous post, I have one more link for you types, who demonize, trash, make enemies-of-the-state, of society's most powerLESS. (Reminds me of those big men who are good at beating up small women, and their own children......)

Here is what a psychiatric social worker has to say against the LIES about those who need to be on SSI and SSDI. I only hope that you eugenicists will need to have to see what it's like to try and get on disability.

www.epinions.com...


YOU G*d D****d F*****G A******s


[edit on 27-2-2009 by simonecharisse]

I think this concept is retarded.


If someone has a per se, not harmful drug, non addictive drug, and uses it for medicinal purposes, they shouldn't be at fault, and they shouldn't have to worry about taking drug tests, because that certain drug shouldn't be illegal.


For the rest, well, most of them don't work anyways.