It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
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.
Originally posted by Fremd
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"
Originally posted by pyrytyes
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.
The 1996 Welfare Reform Act authorized (but did not require) states to impose mandatory drug testing as a prerequisite to receiving state welfare assistance.[iii]
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by andy1033
Oh Andy, you don't get out much do you? You should talk to someone from the hood. You would be amazed at what goes on there. This will never pass due to the bleeding hearts out there. I am all for it. When I was in the millitary and working for other companies after that, if I tested positive, I would no longer be able to support my family.
Originally posted by aLiiEn
Unfortunately random drug testing is not the right thing to do.
If you think this is the right thing, then you should submit to it to.
All people should, which its unconstitutional.
So no one should have to.
Lets start drug testing Politicians and Police officers as well?
Or do you only get drug tested, based upon how you are judged and discriminated against by the wealthy elite pieces of garbage?
Originally posted by skeptic1
nd, what does any of that have to do with drug testing people who receive state/tax-payer assistance?
They are no more and no less than people who have jobs that require random drug testing. Why should they be treated any differently?
Originally posted by Blanca Rose
If the mother does something illegal, then, yes, the children should be taken away and placed into a home where such illegal activites, like toking on doobies doesn't happen. Plus, what difference would it make, since they are already being taken care of by me, and other tax payers already anyway?