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.

 

States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

page: 14
33
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
A lot of bigotry and ignorance about the reality of the situation here.

Ignorance is king on this website,the mods must be laughing their arses off.

It is just a scheme to recover money from people that doesn't even exist,like steal it from the weakest of the weak.

Americans are stupid.

The corporations and banks are stealing millions of times more than anyone else.

The corporations and the government are just giving you something to peck at,like chickens.

Who do you really think stands to benefit from drug testing anyone?.

Selfish little american fools.

And thats not even considering the constitutionality or lawfulness/legality of any of it....



[edit on 27-3-2009 by chiponbothshoulders]




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
A lot of bigotry and ignorance about the reality of the situation here.

Ignorance is king on this website,the mods must be laughing their arses off.

It is just a scheme to recover money from people that doesn't even exist,like steal it from the weakest of the weak.

Americans are stupid.

The corporations and banks are stealing millions of times more than anyone else.

The corporations and the government are just giving you something to peck at,like chickens.

Who do you really think stands to benefit from drug testing anyone?.

Selfish little american fools.


So... by wanting our money to not go to drugs, it makes us selfish fools? But then, you say that corporations and banks are stealing our money... We should reclaim it, then? Wouldn't that makes us selfish, as well? Define how us ignorant Americans can please your interests and continue living in this horrible, wretched catch-22 you have described.



edit: To your constitutionality remark, check my last post.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Highground]

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Highground]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 


You can't just make it random.. You'd literally have to show up at peoples' houses and make them piss on the spot. Not gonna work. You'd have to arrange dates with them like weeks in advance.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
My opinion on the matter is simple. I work my hands to the bone to support myself. i am required by my job to submit to random drug tests, and then the govt requires me by law to pay taxes so taht lazy people dont have to work.
So i HAVE to take drug tests to make the money to pay the taxes that support the people govt assissted programs benefit.
Therefore, if I had to be piss tested in order to work my ass off for my money,to eat and pay taxes with, why shouldnt they be tested to receive the assisstance my tax dollars provide?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Is it true that in some states they will go to the homes of welfare people and check what they have? So when they show up and find a 4,000$ television and 20,000$ in bling bling they cut them off or some thing? I heard the ACLU had a problem with this and filed a law suit to stop it but... Why not? Drug test and search their homes. If the stuff they have costs more then it does to build the damn ISS cut them off!



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Things are getting tight - what do we expect exactly?!?!


Scary thought, however!!



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JMasters
Why not? Drug test and search their homes.


My grandad, who vividly remembers the Jarrow March during the great depression told me that the DSS inspectors did just that, inspected your home for signs of any luxury...and of one neighbour who was turned down because they had butter on the table so were not deemed to be in need of welfare.

What next...books on a shelf being classed as a luxury?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond
Things are getting tight - what do we expect exactly?!?!


Scary thought, however!!


Amen!!!! It was always going this way ever since (and before) the Bildeberg "population control speech"...



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I shouldn't be suprised, but I am.
So much hostiity, anger and angst.
Perhaps.......? No, best not go there.

So many people taking the party line.
Drugs are illegal, evil and ruin lives.
True, for the minority, however, the vast majority of drug users do so responsibly and hold down jobs of all types.
But shhh, best not say that.

This shouldn't be about the pro's and con's of drug use but so many people are commenting how drug use is bad but unfortunately due to the T&C no alternative opinion is allowed!

I should also be suprised at the number of people who are critical of governments for being too intrusive but are supportive of such draconian measures as this.
But i'm not.

Where will it end?
Next it will be eating the wrong foodstuffs or maybe reading the wrong literature? (How can people on benefits afford to read books, surely that's a luxury that should only be allowed to those that work and obediently follow the party line!)

Yes, the benefit system is being abused by many, many people and needs reviewing.
However, disallowing one particular group of 'criminals' from the benefit system whilst allowing burglars, paedophiles, rapists, thieves etc to continue recieving benefits is discrimatory.

Me, if I was going to exclude anyone, it would be sex offenders who have ruined other people's lives for no other reason other than their own sexual gratification.


[edit on 27/3/09 by Freeborn]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Please, try and find some reasoning ability.
To figure out WHY people who don't take drugs, should be drug tested?
Isn't that GUILTY until proven innocent?
Do you find that to be democratic?
Can you imagine the cost, of drug testing EVERY unemployed person?

You people seriously are deluded

The politician responsible for the idea, probably has shares in some pathology clinic.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
This shouldn't be about the pro's and con's of drug use but so many people are commenting how drug use is bad but unfortunately due to the T&C no alternative opinion is allowed!

Yes, exactly. It shouldn't be about the pros and cons, correct. It's about the current law, and you seem to keep wanting to debate this point. And in every one of your posts in this thread, you make some reference to the stoppage of drug threads... It's not going to change because you can't stop bitching. How about stop your pro-drug agenda and take a look at the actual situation and the reasons it may be necessary to put a law like this in place. It's not that drugs are bad, it's that they're ILLEGAL. The state is not going to sponsor an illegal activity with taxpayer money, and I don't think anyone should expect them to. It's not that drugs are right or wrong, that's not the argument. That's not the point that you keep prodding many times. It's about the fact that currently, drugs are illegal, and our money should not be spent to fuel an illegal activity.


I should also be suprised at the number of people who are critical of governments for being too intrusive but are supportive of such draconian measures as this.
But i'm not.

This is not draconian, this is not too intrusive. It is not a far stretch to make sure that the handout money (which you are not guaranteed to begin with) is being used for appropriate means. It's not a step towards any kind of "big brother" society, unless everyone starts going on welfare (Then, we have bigger issues afoot). As long as it is a minor group of people, who are limited to being in this group for 2-3 years, I do not see the long-term damage or draconian government that would come from allowing a random drug testing.


Where will it end?
Next it will be eating the wrong foodstuffs or maybe reading the wrong literature? (How can people on benefits afford to read books, surely that's a luxury that should only be allowed to those that work and obediently follow the party line!)

Eating food is not illegal, nor is reading. One could argue that reading is protected by the first amendment, actually.


Yes, the benefit system is being abused by many, many people and needs reviewing.
However, disallowing one particular group of 'criminals' from the benefit system whilst allowing burglars, paedophiles, rapists, thieves etc to continue recieving benefits is discrimatory.

Me, if I was going to exclude anyone, it would be sex offenders who have ruined other people's lives for no other reason other than their own sexual gratification.


Two things:

1) Felons (ie rapists, pedophiles, violent criminals) are not allowed to collect on welfare.

2) Are you even an American citizen? Because you seem to lean towards British English spelling, and you seem to have little to no knowledge of our law or statutes. I also have a strange feeling that you're the type, that if an American gave opinions on how Her Majesty's land should be run, you would kindly tell them to butt out, they know nothing about your nation-state.

Just what I've gathered.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by aLiiEn
Please, try and find some reasoning ability.
To figure out WHY people who don't take drugs, should be drug tested?

If they have nothing to hide, what is to fear? Why do companies to wide-ranging drug tests if they "know" their employees are all clean? Isn't it circular reasoning to assume that everyone's clean, so they shouldn't be tested, because they're all clean?

Isn't that GUILTY until proven innocent?
Do you find that to be democratic?

No, that's called signing up for a service and meeting its requirements. There probably wouldn't be a threat of any law intervention, just forfeiture of welfare benefits.

Can you imagine the cost, of drug testing EVERY unemployed person?

You people seriously are deluded

The politician responsible for the idea, probably has shares in some pathology clinic.

Can you not comprehend the nature of a RANDOM drug test? It's not testing EVERY unemployed person every month... It's getting a decent sample size, say 10%, and randomly picking the number of people that would constitute this 10%. Then, randomly throughout the month, those 10% would be given the piss test. The next month, that 10% would be selected again. Some might be the same, some might not be.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


I really couldn't give a toss if you commented on the monarchy, you have a right to an opinion as does everyone.

If you'd bothered to read the whole thread and all my posts, as you allegedly have, then you would know that I am British, I have clearly stated that several times!

I have no pro-drug use agenda, just that it is ok to criticise drug users etc but the restrictions placed through T&C deny the opportunity for balanced arguements.
I accept the reasons for T&C but as a result any discussions involving drug use will be one sided and I feel it is fair to point this out.

So anyone convicted of rape, burglary, theft etc or anyone who has been to prison is denied all welfare benefits in the US?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
This carte-blanche attitude of the unemployed being unemployed because they're bone idle and won't find a job is making my effin' blood boil..

God help those smug bastards posting here who think it'll never happen to them and theirs when the recession really bites and they are shoved off the payroll as being surplus to business requirements due to contraction of business orders...just make sure you don't choke on your own morals whilst you slide down that ever-so slippery slope of unemployment hell and have to resort to anything and everything you can think of to put food on the table



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by citizen smith
 


The Great Depression and welfare are two different things. Butter and a 4,000 television with a 2,000 surround sound system are different.

Again, same BS as gay marriage leading to animal sex.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Highground
 


I really couldn't give a toss if you commented on the monarchy, you have a right to an opinion as does everyone.

If you'd bothered to read the whole thread and all my posts, as you allegedly have, then you would know that I am British, I have clearly stated that several times!

I have no pro-drug use agenda, just that it is ok to criticise drug users etc but the restrictions placed through T&C deny the opportunity for balanced arguements.
I accept the reasons for T&C but as a result any discussions involving drug use will be one sided and I feel it is fair to point this out.

So anyone convicted of rape, burglary, theft etc or anyone who has been to prison is denied all welfare benefits in the US?


If someone commits a crime that has the potential to put them in jail for more than one year, it is considered a felony, and they are not allowed to receive welfare benefits, at least to my understanding. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know case law, but from what I undertsand, this is true.

As for your T&C comments, I see no criticism of drug users - just that State money should not be spent to fund an illegal habit. Whether or not it is illegal is up for debate, but at the time it is, in fact, illegal, and should be taken into consideration. I have no problem with people wasting their own money in such a way, but when it comes to money given by the government to help them, sometimes they need a little push in the right direction. "Help us help you" if you will.

I seem to have missed the British comments, my apologies. Nothing against you, just the feeling I was getting, and I was apparently wrong.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith
This carte-blanche attitude of the unemployed being unemployed because they're bone idle and won't find a job is making my effin' blood boil..

God help those smug bastards posting here who think it'll never happen to them and theirs when the recession really bites and they are shoved off the payroll as being surplus to business requirements due to contraction of business orders...just make sure you don't choke on your own morals whilst you slide down that ever-so slippery slope of unemployment hell and have to resort to anything and everything you can think of to put food on the table


If it comes to that, I have nothing to worry about because I don't participate in illegal activities. I believe the majority of the people that are referenced in this thread are the ones that are on welfare solely to supplement an illegal income or to supplement a drug habit. Several times, I have seen where posters have said they have nothing against welfare recipients, and that there ARE people deserving of it enrolled in the program. Perhaps if you lived in one of these neighborhoods, you'd see what I see every day? You'd start to understand the mentality of the (now) classic non-working class.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


No offence taken I assure you.
I enjoy and welcome reasoned and balanced debate / discussions on most subjects from anyone.

The tone of some of the posts when discussing drug users has been insulting and derogatory and has certainly shown signs of blindly accepting the 'all drug use(ers) is /are harmful, wrong and evil' party line.

Indeed, as Citizen Smith has stated, the attitude of some shown to the unemployed has been condescending and downright disgusting.
There is no more a supporter of Benefit System reform than I but I think it is fair to say that the MAJORITY of people recieving unemployment and other welfare benefits do so because of circumstances beyond their control and are legitimate claimants.

Here in the UK prisoners are not allowed to claim benefits whilst locked up however prior to imprisonment and upon release they are allowed to claim as normal.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JMasters
reply to post by citizen smith
 


The Great Depression and welfare are two different things. Butter and a 4,000 television with a 2,000 surround sound system are different.

Again, same BS as gay marriage leading to animal sex.


They're one and the same...butter on the table in the 30's depression or widescreen TV today...when you're down and out, looking forward to the smallest of luxuries brightens an otherwise hellish day at the job-centre.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Highground

If it comes to that, I have nothing to worry about because I don't participate in illegal activities.


When benefit sanctions are applied, you lose 40% of the £75-a-fortnight payment, so you only have £22.50 a week for EVERY living expense...for the next 6 months!

Could you meet every need on a comparable amount without recourse to illegal activity? I tried...and I couldn't



Perhaps if you lived in one of these neighborhoods, you'd see what I see every day? You'd start to understand the mentality of the (now) classic non-working class.


I've lived in squats and run-down apartments in some of the most deprived areas of Manchester, UK, and I understand only too well the effects of poverty and economic exclusion. What is endemic in these kinds of areas is a pathological depression...a learned helplessness if you like.

Drug, or rather substance, use/dependance is one of the few escape routes from the dark days of no jobs to be had. Just look at areas such as Merthyr Tydvyl in Wales or Wakefield after the mine closures in the 80's, or the closure of Detroit's car plants as an example. When the jobs are too far to commute to, and you can't afford to relocate, your trapped...what then?

[edit on 27-3-2009 by citizen smith]



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join