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: 4
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


That depends on your views on drug use, note not drug ABUSE, there is a massive difference, and that is not the topic here and, unfortunately but understandably, is contrary to T&C.

It seems that everyone agrees that the benefit system is being abused and that complete overhauls of both UK and US systems are required.




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


I did not express, in any way, that I condone a mother on any sort of assistance, using any illegal substance.

Would you deny the welfare? Or take in the children, to provide for their shelter, food clothing? Or provide the mother's love, and caring?

Let's just take the kids away from them, as there are more than the one, and give them to you...
BECAUSE, I do not wish for MY tax dollars to be applied for the life of the children, once taken from the mother.

I'll go one step further...

Line the public school students up for a whiz quiz, next Tuesday... those that fail are expelled... no ifs, ands, or buts.

That would ease the educational problems we are currently experiencing.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by skeptic1
 


That depends on your views on drug use, note not drug ABUSE, there is a massive difference, and that is not the topic here and, unfortunately but understandably, is contrary to T&C.

It seems that everyone agrees that the benefit system is being abused and that complete overhauls of both UK and US systems are required.

Let's put it this way: If a 3rd party organisation started handing out money, but required a drug test and certain limitations, would this be completely unfair? Would it be preposterous that the people handing out their earnings would want to make sure that it's not being used to fuel a recreational OR abusive drug habit, but to better that person by providing them with the means to get food and boarding for the duration of their unemployment, so they can concentrate on getting employed and not how they're going to live through the next week?

Take this concept and apply it to the government's welfare program. They are under no obligation to hand out their earnings, it's pretty much a courtesy.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
to the OP:

I completely agree with you. Make this mandatory


to andy


If you are on welfare, how would you afford illegal drugs?


a majority of the people currently on welfare, are there because they waste their money ON illegal drugs and frivolous other things like $200 hair styles.'

Stereotypes exist for a reason, and humor isnt it.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Reason 1 it is an invasion of personel privacy for you me or anyone else, wheather you are working for a private company or getting welfare. What is next? Bursting into your bedroom at night to see if you are doing something we dont like? Would you submit to that to? (Sheep)



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I fall rather against the whole Idea of drug testing in general as a basic deprivation of personal privacy. However, to get a good job, you usually have to pee in a cup. Why shouldn't someone who is leeching off those of us who actually work have to jump through the same hoop?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudWalker
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Reason 1 it is an invasion of personel privacy for you me or anyone else, wheather you are working for a private company or getting welfare. What is next? Bursting into your bedroom at night to see if you are doing something we dont like? Would you submit to that to? (Sheep)



You should forfeit your "Privacy" if im going to pay for you and your 15 children (you being a metaphore for the stereotypical welfare recipient)

If you're going to get MY hard earned back been broken money - then i should get some say in a few strings attached.

String #1: No illegal drug use. Period. You're broke and jobless (quite possibly on purpose) you don't need to be spending YOUR money on drugs, and MY money on bills. It's called a budget, responsible people use it.


If i had my way - welfare would not exist in it's current form. I happen to agree with a few other posts i've read on this website about it:

You'd have to be handicapped or elderly to get it. Period.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudWalker
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Reason 1 it is an invasion of personel privacy for you me or anyone else, wheather you are working for a private company or getting welfare. What is next? Bursting into your bedroom at night to see if you are doing something we dont like? Would you submit to that to? (Sheep)


It isn't an invasion of privacy if it is agreed to in order to be gainfully employeed or to receive tax-payer funded assistance. Informed consent, remember.

I can't cry "invasion of privacy" when I signed a piece of paper agreeing to random drug testing before I got my job. Of course, I didn't have to accept the job or keep it, but I have grown fond of the roof over my head, clothes on my back, and food on the table.

If this becomes law, then people don't have to accept welfare if they don't want to be drug tested. They can always depend on private charities.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 



They can always depend on private charities.


or they can just get a job like the rest of us.

One isnt enough? Get two.

I hear McDonalds AND FedEx Ground are always looking for help.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I will say that I do not condone drug use of any kind, even many of the legal types that is precsribed to control behavior. I am not on welfare and enjoy the roof over my head as you do but you should not have to give up your privacy to be employed or recieve assistance. It is a conditioning of the people to accept (Our Terms) for you to have anything. As I ask what else are you willing to accept for your priviliges that you are handed.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fremd
reply to post by skeptic1
 



They can always depend on private charities.


or they can just get a job like the rest of us.

One isnt enough? Get two.

I hear McDonalds AND FedEx Ground are always looking for help.

But they both drug test!

I cain't make muh livin gettin an acktuwal jawb, so I haz to get welfarez so I can do my drugz and nao I cant even get muh welfare!

Dead serious - you can't get a job most anywhere nowadays (including McDonalds) without being tested, so why should welfare be the exception?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudWalker
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I will say that I do not condone drug use of any kind, even many of the legal types that is precsribed to control behavior. I am not on welfare and enjoy the roof over my head as you do but you should not have to give up your privacy to be employed or recieve assistance. It is a conditioning of the people to accept (Our Terms) for you to have anything. As I ask what else are you willing to accept for your priviliges that you are handed.

You stated it correctly, they are privileges. They are not guaranteed, it is not the government's responsibility to hand out money. It chooses to do so, so you have to play by their rules. It is not a right to get welfare. Do not get those two words confused.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I agree with the policy and I would also establish alcohol and tobacco limits.

If you are unemployed, you should be looking for work rather than wasting money on cigarettes or staggering around drunk.

Some say thats authoritarian- and I can't argue with that. It is. However welfare benefits are inherently authoritarian-collectivistic, so how about we use that authoritarianism for good rather than allowing society to degenerate.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
What happens to those claimants who test positive? Bar them for applying for any state welfare for a fixed period?

All that will do is create a knockon problem of increased crime rates as those who tested positive and so refused support will have to resort to other means to find a quid to live on

burgalrys will increase, substance users will move to substance distributers, prostitution, robbery...all just to try to make ends meet whilst attempting to chase a 'proper job'

Its always easy to blame others when the ecomic good times turn sour, but hey, if it weren't for the many many millions of greedy, selfish, credit-today-pay tomorrow, employed-and-therefore-entitled sheep who borrowed beyond their means and now bleat on about having difficulty in paying it all back, we wouldn't be in this situation!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith


burgalrys will increase, substance users will move to substance distributers, prostitution, robbery...all just to try to make ends meet whilst attempting to chase a 'proper job'



living in fear of "what ifs" is not going to change the current problem though.
If burglaries increase, so then do gun sales from home owners trying to protect themselves.

In the BIG BIG picture, removing the worthless leeches from the welfare system is a good...no...it's a marvelous thing that i've been dreaming of for a long long time.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
First I think that drug testing of Almost any kind is unconstitutional as it implies guilt, and the US supreme court agreed with me till the Reagan era. To me it's just another system to control us, or to force a christian type of morality onto the masses.
if you wish to work to support your family you must conform to what "We" say is right, we will determine what you can or can't put into your system

However I'm all for a even playing field, if we are going to have a pee in a cup society then Everyone should be tested, especially the politicians in congress, the courts, the police all at state, local and federal level by independent testers.

Now what to do with all the people that test positive? Should we just throw them into prison?

We have fallen so fast, the next thing they will do is start testing for big macs or whoppers, these are just as bad for you as drugs.

Edit to add* If you continue to let the government sit next to you on your couch telling you what you can or can't do, how to raise your children, people are going to get sick of it and will react to it. Cigs are going up in price again on April 1st because of another "sin" tax, and what was the spark that led to the American Revolution?

This is just another ploy by the government to control more of the population.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by LDragonFire]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


I agree that anyone who claims a public salary (cops, politicians, judges, deadbeats on benefits etc) should be tested.

However ordinary citizens should not be.

This distinction is drawn between the two forms of rights. Natural rights are intrinsic to every free man, and prevent him from being unduly drug tested.

Civil rights are granted by authorities, much as public support/salaries are. Thus there is no protection from examination for those who claim on the public purse.

If you are a free man then you cannot be constitutionally tested. If you are reliant on others/ collective society/ government then you must be open to testing, since the very fact that you claim from the government suggests that you are not using natural, constitutional rights, but instead using civil rights.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 



Civil rights are granted by authorities, much as public support/salaries are. Thus there is no protection from examination for those who claim on the public purse.


Yes, you're correct. But this isnt saying "you're going to be tested simply because we want to"

This is saying "if you want to get free money, you're going to be tested"

for the same reason felons on parole get tested
for the same reason the government tests your eye sight before they give you a drivers license
for the same reason the government tells you it's okay to own a firearm as long as you pass a background check.

It's not about civil rights. It's about common sense.

You're lying to yourself if you don't think a very large majority of the welfare community is just like the stereotype says they are.


Oh, and my #2 string attached would be to say that minors in the household must abide by truancy laws.
If my money is going to someone else, it should be an investment. At least keep their butts in school instead of running the streets because "it's cool"



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 


I've experienced a time in my life on welfare, and when it was 'sanctioned' meaning that what I recieved was half of the meagre sum of welfare.

As a result, I hocked and sold almost all of my few possessions to clear the rising debts. I couldn't afford to pay the bills, so I lost my gas heating and cooking facilities, I had the electricity cut off for a period for the same reason, couldn't afford even a cheap set of 'interview-clothes'. The only way to get by was to beg, steal, anything, to survive mentally and physically.

If you've never been in that kind of situation, you've no idea how hard it is to resist a hit of something to take the bleak cold, damp, and hunger pains away...even for just an hour's respite.

Adding the factor of failing a state drugs test as part of the humiliation of welfare reciept, then chances of a return to working life have just been multiplied tenfold



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 

My employer has a random drug test policy in place. If I test positive for weed, I lose my job, and have to go before the State Board. If I'm lucky, I get to keep my license, but have to be on probation and submit to drug testing at the drop of a hat. If I am unlucky, I lose my license and my ability to make a living. So for me, the choice is simple. I don't do drugs. And random drug testing is not unconstitutional.
You woul be surprised how many people I see who are on welfare, and test postive for weed, coc aine, and opiates.
And I'm suppporting their habit.




top topics



 
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join