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: 21
33
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by daddymax
 


It would seem that your response to me is based off of my last post, in which case you take my meaning out of context. I am not discussing people that abuse the system simply because they don't want to work, or use their benefits to buy drugs.

I am saying that a senior citizen receiving food stamps to supplement their meager income should not be forced to undergo drug testing. They put in their time, paid their dues if they wanna hit a doobie that's their right, just as it is your right.

Niether should working parents that don't make enough money and must supplement their income with food stamps to feed their children.

Nor people on unemployment. Now if you smoked last weekend it's gonna be in your system for about a month. If your company has cutbacks and you lose your job monday, should you be denied your unemployment benefits that you worked for and paid your tax dollars for because you hit a J last weekend ? I don't think so, i think (based on what you say) that you're a responsible hard working person that has his priorities in the right place that should not be penalized (or your family either)because you smoked a little weed when he was off the clock. Like it or not that's my opinion


You must not have noticed that i have the same view as you in the fact that i feel that as long as i'm working, taking care of myself and my responsibilities, what i do when i'm off the clock is my business, unfortunately i don't have that freedom.

My point in that post was that just because someone drinks, or smokes (and can't pass a pee test, which i guess you can't if you smoke) does not make them an alcoholic, or druggie. And that the poster was wrong to classify everybody who disagrees with this legislation as being either an alcoholic or a druggie.

It's not about believing in the right to do drugs, or not, it's about believing that the government has no right to have control of our personal lives. If you on the other hand don't have a problem with the government dictating to you what you can and can't do in every aspect of your life, then that is your right.




posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
They ought to force them into forced labor work camps where they work for their room and board instead of steal and take drugs.

In the case of hard drugs like meth and coke, not mary j.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by TH3ON3]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


In my opinion if your going to drug test anyone then you need to drug test everyone. the second tuesday of every month should do just fine.

Also the cost of drug testing welfare receiptiants will be more costly than the welfare itself.

I do like the idea of community service for welfare though. You should have to do something to earn the money being paid to you. but then welfare would be a job and could be considered income and very much taxable.

Just wanted to add my two cents worth even if its only worth half a penny.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
If legislators are going to start mandating random drug testing for ordinary citizens, they ought to start with themselves.

Before they start making us pee in a cup, let's see them make themselves do it first.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TH3ON3
They ought to force them into forced labor work camps where they work for their room and board instead of steal and take drugs.

In the case of hard drugs like meth and coke, not mary j.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by TH3ON3]


Oh, maybe you didn't know that drug addicts are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act; alcoholics too. You can't make them work, you can't not hire them either if they want to work or you'll be sued.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 




No this will pass with flying colors. The states are being over run with applications for social services so they have to restrict it some how. I believe as its gets rougher You will see more restrictions placed on the welfare system and You might actually see the state go after dead beat dads whom allow the system to take care of their kids. You are wrong though most of the people have kids and never register the father so the mother can get full benefits. Go around the hood or the welfare areas You see it all the time with fathers living with their kids but the state turning a blind eye to that. Generally the father is a total looser and sits around drinking all day while the rest of us have to work our tails off to support his kids. I can't wait for these laws to pass then we will see true equality.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Hey all I know is when I go to pick up my daughter from preschool I see welfare people walking around all day. The school she goes to is in the section 8 area of town which I really love. I especially enjoyed the fact that I had to dish out over 3k for my child to go to school while these people sent their kids at no cost to them. These people walk around all day with nothing to do except for living off the system. So yes I am in favor of piss testing the hell out of these people and then I am in favor of the state coming back on the fathers and making them pay 100% of the money back. You liberals think its a right to eat and to survive but its not and if You don't agree why not just dump yourself in the jungle. Life is hard and it is the survival of the fittest and we allow these people to leech off the middle class and have a merry old time. Oh I don't have a problem taking care of someone that really needs it like someone with a condition they had no control over. Now when someone has the control and #s up their life I think they should suffer the consequences of their actions. The reason the cycle is never broken is because the government steps in and coddles these people. If parents were truelly impoverished and they messed up their lives don't You think they would at least make sure their children didn't make the same mistakes?



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Highground

Originally posted by aLiiEn
Yes, on here, you come across, and no doubt in person you would be worse.
To think you are HIGHER and BETTER than people.
I didn't say welfare recipients are better than anyone.
In fact I tried to explain to you, how they are the same as you.
Your life is slavery, you are a slave to the illegal federal reserve.

Let's start here. You are implying that you are better than all of us by making these statements. You have our government all figured out, you know that our economy is based off of an illegal scheme, and we're all the same. Makes you sound a little self-righteous, doesn't it? Makes you sound like exactly the person you're calling us, if not moreso. We don't claim to know these peoples' lives, as you claim to know ours.

You choose to do some work, ok, but you don't choose to have part of your money stolen from you.

It's not stolen. In fact, if you pay your taxes and apply for the benefits, you actually see your federal withholdings come back. Not that you'd know this, as I'm sure you avoid this "illegal system."

You might need someone, one day, to prop you up, what are you going to say then?
You new everything?
Yes you would care, if you were unfairly judged, and harshly labeled, as a person who was considered bad to others.
Then you WOULD miss, indeed, say that you were unfairly judged.

I might possibly need help one day, and I'll be willing to do what it takes to get that help. Submitting to drug tests, sure. I'd have more problems to worry about than scoring my next hit if I was on welfare.

Being on welfare is acknowledging, the faults in the system.
It is acknowledging, that tax payers are victim's of crime.

Howso? I daresay you're trolling given this statement.

No one lady, and I mean no one, in this great republic, ever authorized income tax.
Why don't you go look it up, miss braino?

Actually, it's written in our constitution. Why not give it a read, sometime, instead of regurgitating "facts" you hear from ill-conceived conspiracy movies? (I'll give you a hint: 16th amendment)

You are just another example, of an under educated, go with the flow, plod along.
That makes JP Morgan rich.
You are the people, with all good intentions, that make the world, a worser place.

Again, with your accusatory stance and your "holier-than-thou" attitude that you try to claim we have.

I am done trying to help you understand where you went wrong, in your brainwashed thinking.
Either figure it out, or get out of my way.

Good riddance.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Highground]



Hey Idiot the income tax is illegal and it was never ratified. How bout You read Your own constitution. I can find plenty of writings that the founders did where they said it was wrong to take from one man and give to another. The original tax was a pole tax and a tariff. Oh another thing the tax money is stolen also and if You don't think so then don't pay see how long it takes for armed federal martials to show up and seize Your house and income.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
On threads such as this one, it would be interesting, and enlightening, to know the type of employment, generic, of the respondents. Especially, in the sense of private sector, self-employed or government.

I am partly self-employed, private sector consultant, as well as, private sector, security employee.

The interest raised in this thread, as well as, the issues involved, commented on, has piqued my curiosity. It seems there are a variety of personalities rather passionate for, and against the subject matter.

Anyone...?



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by pyrytyes
 


I'm surprised to see so many passionate opinions on both sides as well. I'm not however, surprised by this type of legislation. It was only a matter of time.

For the record, I am (in general) for pot legalization and against government welfare.

Most of the people that I know receive some sort of welfare. I grew up around it, though my parents income was just above the limit to receive assistance when they were both working. My dad retired a couple years ago (we just celebrated his 65th birthday) and my mom (55) has been unable to work for the past several years due to serious back problems caused by 20 years as a nurse's aid in a home for the elderly. They now receive food stamps (about $150/month) because my dad's social security is not enough.

I'm having a hard time thinking of people I know who do not receive government assistance. My sister-in-law just suggested to me yesterday that I should get on welfare so that she can have them pay me for babysitting my nephews. Most people that I know on welfare have jobs, they just don't think they can manage without help.

About 10 years ago though, I knew a couple who had 3 children, neither of them worked, and they got any government assistance they could, but they did not take drugs. I also know that some drug dealers accept food stamps from their "customers" on welfare. Usually for half their value ($1 = $2 food stamps).

I'm very interested in what will happen when welfare recipients, particularly those who use marijuana, learn about these developments. It will be interesting to see who among those I know personally will choose liberty and personal responsibility over government handouts.

That's my personal perspective of all this. FYI, I'm a self-employed (amateur) freelance writer.

Thanks all, for sharing your views on the matter.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by spark00
Drug test senators ,Congressmen,Governors,all federal and state workers an even the president.
Then I say they can test anbody they want.



[edit on 29-3-2009 by spark00]


Just how many lawmakers would pass a drug test?



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darksiderider316
reply to post by skeptic1
 

I do like the idea of community service for welfare though. You should have to do something to earn the money being paid to you. but then welfare would be a job and could be considered income and very much taxable.


Yes it would then be considered a job, and then they would have to be paid at least minimum wage for the work that they do. If they are made to work full time that would mean that they would make at least twice what they receive now, maybe more. However they would probably still make less than the cutoff line for assistance and would more than likely still receive stamps and medical, maybe even some cash.

And yes their money would be very taxable, but it would probably still be low enough to where they not only had no tax liability and got all their taxes back, but would also receive money back that they had not even paid in because of earned income.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by eMachine
 


Thank you for your openness in replying.

Has your Mom checked into disability due to her back problems? I have an uncle that has back issues that cannot be corrected by surgery, and was/ is on SSDI. He is now in his 80's, on SSI, not sure if the SSDI is still in effect on top of SSI. I do not know how such programs work.


I think the system is screwed up, personally, but I speak from ignorance of said system. Unless one has NEED, ignorance is BLISS!



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by delta33

Originally posted by spark00
Drug test senators ,Congressmen,Governors,all federal and state workers an even the president.
Then I say they can test anbody they want.



[edit on 29-3-2009 by spark00]


Just how many lawmakers would pass a drug test?


probably about half



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by delta33

Originally posted by spark00
Drug test senators ,Congressmen,Governors,all federal and state workers an even the president.
Then I say they can test anbody they want.



[edit on 29-3-2009 by spark00]


Just how many lawmakers would pass a drug test?


Personally, I think most of them would probably pass. Rather than sitting around smoking weed, which stays in your system for about a month, I think they'd be more likely to use coc aine, which I believe can only be detected for a few days after use.

I'd also expect them to be using alcohol and misusing pharmaceutical drugs, which would probably be more expensive and difficult to test for. The cheap drug tests they're talking about for welfare recipients would likely be the same ones they use for people on probation, a dip-stick test for marijuana and/or amphetamines.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I think this is a outstanding idea. If these people on these programs can afford drugs they can find a way to afford food. Also people on unemployment should as well be tested for drugs every month in order to get the monies. To many people are riding the system & it is these kind of people who get us who actual work in a mess.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The debate is kind of moot anyway, as courts have already ruled this kind of testing unconstitutional.

See Marchwinski V. Howard.



In 1999, the State of Michigan implemented a plan to drug test applicants for public assistance. The ACLU, with the assistance of Drug Policy Alliance, challenged this policy in federal court in the case Marchwinski v. Michigan. For the case, the Alliance conducted a nationwide survey of state drug testing policies with respect to public benefits, revealing that the other 49 states used alternative, far less intrusive methods to detect drug abuse among welfare applicants and recipients. The Alliance study was introduced as evidence in the ACLU brief and was cited by the United States District Court in its decision to strike down Michigan's drug testing policy as unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by yesIAM
 


Just how exactly do people on unemployment get you in a mess ? And how are those collecting unemployment benefits riding the system ?

People on unemployment should be tested for drug use every month, and just where is all this money going to come from ?



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I recon that's okay but I firmly believe ALL Gov't elected officials should be piss tested randomly and often with zero tolerence!



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Drug test all elected gov't "officials" random. often, and with zero tolerance.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join