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: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 


You forgot the part that makes it a violation of your privacy. "and persons"

en.wikipedia.org...


* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The reason it is allowed is not because it is not a violation of your privacy. It is. Clearly, it is. Randomly sampling the pee of people who are not suspected on reasonable grounds of using drugs is a violation of the 4th Amendment. The reason companies are allowed to do this is because they are not the government. The line of reasoning goes, "you dont have to work there." Completely over looking that increasingly, you DO have to work for a company that tests, as very few do not at this point.

The fact that it is a violation of the 4th Amendment is the reason our leaders are not tested.




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
In the past we provided contracted services to the department so I have seen a good portion of welfare recipients in my area. I think some here are being a bit naive.

There are good people who need the assistance and would submit to testing no problem. On the other hand there are others who want their lifestyle financed by society. These people are the problem. They learn what the rules are and how to break them without being in violation. In fact I've seen people start out good and once in the system resort to the same kind of tactics seen in others.

Here's the problem legal prescription drugs. Welfare/medicaid go hand in hand. Often drug abusers/alcoholics are involved in falls, car accidents you name it and require medical attention where upon they are given prescriptions for pain pills and muscle relaxants. Others claim they have issues and are given sleep aids & anti-depressants. We're talking about some very strong drugs here that have value on the black market. Some of these people stay on their legal drugs. It's perfect they can keep getting assistance due to the fact their strong meds make them unable to work. When these no longer work their Dr. happily prescribes them stronger ones. Everyone's happy these people get their pills/assistance, the doctors make money as do the pharmaceutical companies, hospitals etc. I've seen little old ladies who worked their whole lives become this type of person, staying dependent on these kinds of pills and the system.

Now on the other hand some get their meds but prefer the illegal stuff. They will trade or sell their meds for what they want. After a certain amount of time goes by they can refill their scripts and be back on their merry way. They never have to use food stamp/welfare money, although they have figured out ways to abuse that system also.

This problem with legal prescriptions was getting so out of hand in my area several doctors were under investigation and prohibited from writing prescriptions for narcotics. It had become their bread & butter. Their patients just went on to find another doctor and the "doctors" were suspended from writing prescriptions for narcotics for a time. A slap on the wrist imo. If testing was required most would just stay on their legal drugs. Is that any better?

Many of you would not believe the extent people will stoop to when trying to get free money. One woman actually admitted to me when she wanted to get her social security settlement she purposely did bad on her mental evaluation. Well she did such a good job they found her to be so incompetent she was required to have a guardian to handle her money. Jokes on her but how sad. If she was willing to take herself down to such a level I say she traded her self-respect for a living not dissimilar to prostitution. So I would say she is probably not all there and is a raging alcoholic btw.

No easy answers here but testing is not the cure all you would like to believe. Imo there is a reason our government wants people on the dole. You think maybe someone is making a lot of money off it? No they won't allow testing. What would they do with all the children of those who test positive? CPS in no way could handle those numbers. Believe me I feel your pain but only an honest fully disclosed examination of the entire system will bring about the change we desire. Testing imo would only incur further expense and would be just another way for some organization/corporation to get rich off of the welfare system & us. It's a lose-lose situation.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith



Both are already being paid by your tax-dollars in bailouts and bonuses, so why pick on those who you see as less fortunate than yourself?

Oh, I get it now, its the 'blame the easy target' arguement aint it


Excuse me, but you know nothing about me at all, and for you to assume so is wrong.

I raised 4 children on my own, due to cirumstances that forced me to be a single parent.

I worked 2 jobs for many years to support my children by myself. I always earned just over the amount allowed to qualify for any social services, plus I had a vehicle that they considered to expensive, but I needed it to get back and forth to work.

If I can do it, anybody can. My children never went hungry, they had a roof over their heads, and home I managed to scrape and purchase on my own.

Meantime, I know several people who are dope heads, that sit at home doing nothing more than spewing out babies every couple of years or so, so they can keep their benefits!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Why do I have to do it? In order to get a paycheck and keep my job. It isn't a big deal to me. And, if it was, then I could find another job, couldn't I?

I don't see it as a privacy issue. I see it as a protection issue, for my employer, their other employees, and myself.

And, like I said before, if this becomes law, then if people have such a huge problem with it, they can always depend on private charities who don't have such restrictions in place.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
IMO, drug testing for the benefits of welfare should be a must for ALL, not just random. I have lived in Phila, PA all my life. This city has its perks and nice areas, but an over abundance of worthless, lazy individuals of all colors and all ages. Some are victims of circumstance, but others choose to do nothing because they have the gov't to lean on for money, food, etc. Any by gov't, I mean the responsible working americans that pay their taxes that support these programs.

If we're footing the bill, you're pissing in the cup.

I had to pass a drug test to get my job, where i actually have to work for the money i receive. it's only fair that these individuals, that don't have to work for their support, submit to the same type of policy, seeing as how they just pick up a check every month.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

Originally posted by citizen smith



Both are already being paid by your tax-dollars in bailouts and bonuses, so why pick on those who you see as less fortunate than yourself?

Oh, I get it now, its the 'blame the easy target' arguement aint it


Excuse me, but you know nothing about me at all, and for you to assume so is wrong.

I raised 4 children on my own, due to cirumstances that forced me to be a single parent.

I worked 2 jobs for many years to support my children by myself. I always earned just over the amount allowed to qualify for any social services, plus I had a vehicle that they considered to expensive, but I needed it to get back and forth to work.

If I can do it, anybody can. My children never went hungry, they had a roof over their heads, and home I managed to scrape and purchase on my own.

Meantime, I know several people who are dope heads, that sit at home doing nothing more than spewing out babies every couple of years or so, so they can keep their benefits!



And Kudos to you.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I think that it's a great idea.

If you're trying to be in the work force you will most likely get tested.

If you're trying to get on welfare why shouldn't you be tested?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 

I can't afford drugs on a good salary, so I cannot imagine anyone really needing public benefits can afford them either.

If someone applying for money/foodstamp assistance can afford drugs, they do not need the benefits and may have other plans for the money.

I am drug tested regularly on the job.

I don't feel my position is uncaring.



Edit: spelling

[edit on 2009/26/3 by Marmota monax]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
If you are on welfare, how would you afford illegal drugs?

Just how many people that get welfare, can buy that stuff when they need food, and other things.

Can there really be that big of a problem of welfare people on drugs.


Nope, but it does give them a reason to infiltrate your life even more, and since the economy has taken such a nasty turn looks like even more people will succumb to the IRON fist of the government.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
If you are on welfare, how would you afford illegal drugs?

Just how many people that get welfare, can buy that stuff when they need food, and other things.

Can there really be that big of a problem of welfare people on drugs.


It's a big problem, how many people on welfare buy alcohol and tobacco products? I think that if they are taking public money than they should be subject to regulation on what they can spend it on. I think they shouldn't be able to spend it on alcohol and tobacco frankly. If you live by the hand of the iron fist, then it should be able to crush you...maybe then people would see that the welfare system should be eliminated completely along with other price inflating and economically unsustainable social programs that the government has crammed down the throat of American citizens.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by yellowcard]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1

I don't see it as a privacy issue. I see it as a protection issue, for my employer, their other employees, and myself.



Do you think people who work for your company and who passed their tests use drugs? Or do you think the testing has made your workplace drug free entirely?

If you think there are people employed by your company who do use drugs, and who just knew how to bypass the original drug screen, how do you feel the testing made you safer?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

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.


Why don't our senators and congressmen sign up for random drug tests. Also, our local state representatives. Some people in the executive branch should be tested, as well as the judiciary. Drug test some of our top military personnel, the president and the supreme court. Also, some of those banksters on wall street.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
lol is all that I got to say
what a joke

notwithmytaxdollars.com
does that include not having taxpayers subsidize murder, illegal invasions, fema trailer homes with formaldehyde, proppin up puppet govts, israel, global military bases in places where they shouldn't be which includes over 140 countries?

No? just if welfare recipients smoke weed or not?

Oh ok!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by skeptic1



Do you think people who work for your company and who passed their tests use drugs? Or do you think the testing has made your workplace drug free entirely?

If you think there are people employed by your company who do use drugs, and who just knew how to bypass the original drug screen, how do you feel the testing made you safer?


No offense, but your logic would also indicate since we cannot cure all TB we should not treat those who have the disease nor should we screen for TB and employ prevention measures.

Many work environments carry extreme risk. Drug testing lessens the chance of accidents in the work place.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Why would any one have a problem with this... Unless they couldn't pass! I can pass, always do at work. IDK why they still test me since I've always passed and always will.

But the majority of people on welfare? Yeah, I doubt it.

Especially after I think NYC made it so you had to show your SS number to collect, suddenly thousands of getters... disappeared! Because it was one person under five different names collecting over and over again.

Also, I am tired of welfare people with better and more expensive crap then me. I am tired of them with 6k gold and diamond watch driving a new caddie while collecting welfare because they do have a job, but the government doesn't recognize drug dealing as a job.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by skeptic1

I don't see it as a privacy issue. I see it as a protection issue, for my employer, their other employees, and myself.



Do you think people who work for your company and who passed their tests use drugs? Or do you think the testing has made your workplace drug free entirely?

If you think there are people employed by your company who do use drugs, and who just knew how to bypass the original drug screen, how do you feel the testing made you safer?


I am sure some use drugs. And, as for making it drug free entirely....of course not. People will always beat the tests; there's always going to be those out there whose mission that is.

I am in a unique position. I am a government contractor who works at a DoD installation; I am the only person who works for my company who works at this installation (and only one of 3 who work in this state). Marines I work with get tested randomly and regularly. Civilian employees don't. But, I still have to go and get tested when my company requests it.

I see that as a safety measure for everyone, myself included. And, I am sure I am in the minority in thinking that, but my job is a bit different from others. If I was in an office environment or working retail, my opinion might be totally different.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
So who's going to administer this then ?

A whole new legion of public servants from the Ministry of Piss ?

That's pure Monty Python.

Ever tried phoning the Welfare Office lately ? Tried emailing them ? You'd be lucky to get a response from them after a whole month trying. Now you'd have them administer this test too ? What are folks supposed to live on meantime, fresh air ?

Don't quite remember the Government requiring random drugs tests every time you pay your taxes ...



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
lol is all that I got to say
what a joke

notwithmytaxdollars.com
does that include not having taxpayers subsidize murder, illegal invasions, fema trailer homes with formaldehyde, proppin up puppet govts, israel, global military bases in places where they shouldn't be which includes over 140 countries?

No? just if welfare recipients smoke weed or not?

Oh ok!


ModernAcademia: you are casting a pretty large safety net there.

This would be the exact point many of us in favor of testing are trying to make: If someone applying for money/foodstamp assistance can afford drugs, they do not need the benefits and may have other plans for the money.

How is the logic of "I don't want to finance someone else's bad decisions" flawed?

Whether they are buying "weed" or a house they cannot afford, when I am forced to pay for it the result is less food on the table my family sits at.

Edit: html


[edit on 2009/26/3 by Marmota monax]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   




So govt. money is the test. OK, to be consistent with this, all those who received govt. bailouts recently should be tested. Like the top executives at AIG.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1

I am in a unique position. I am a government contractor who works at a DoD installation; I am the only person who works for my company who works at this installation (and only one of 3 who work in this state). Marines I work with get tested randomly and regularly. Civilian employees don't. But, I still have to go and get tested when my company requests it.



Very interesting. I also worked as a civilian contract employee on a DOE site hand in hand with the military.

www.johnstonmemories.com...

It was a very controlled site. Not only were we drug tested pre-employment, and randomly if the company requested, but we were on a tiny and very isolated island in the Pacific with our bags checked as we entered the island. Dogs were sometimes brought through the housing areas, just to be on the safe side.

We were working with some very hazardous things, chemical weapons, heavy equipment, etc.

And people still had drugs.

And not only that, but as I stated in my other post, nothing at all was done to regulate the use of alcohol. As a result, people who had drank all night and come in hungover (or still drunk) were handling these dangerous things from time to time.

Drug testing did not make me safer. Watching my co-workers and letting the manager know if someone was acting unsafely did. We were equally in danger from people who were impaired, and those who were stone cold sober and just horsing around. Drugs were just not the issue in its entirety, and screening, even very tight controlled circumstances, did not make the workplace safe. Vigilance did.




top topics



 
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join