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: 7
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Drug testing is not the major solution to anything, but it is a step.

I manage hazardous material and waste and I sure as hell don't want people I work with who work with that stuff drunk or stoned and handling it. That is dangerous for everyone. Like you, I believe that vigilance really helps, also.

Being on welfare or being on some sort of public assistance is not "dangerous" like some jobs are. But, it shouldn't be a lifestyle, either. It should be a temporary stop-gap measure to help people out until they can get back on their feet again.

But, too many don't do that. Too many live off tax-payer money simply because they can. That needs to stop. And, if random drug testing on any and everyone that is on public assistance can help to rehabilitate the welfare system, it isn't a bad first step.

JMO....




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


Blanca, I was challenging the arguement in your post, not you yourself.

You get my admiration for what you achieved in bringing up your kids single-handed against the odds, what you describe in your post is my childhood, and yes, we all pulled our weight to get the team through in the end

I had the misfortune to get trapped in a run-down house on a sink-hole estate in the inner-city, lost my job through cost-cutting by the firm, and had a very hard time finding new employment as I was living in an 'undesirable postcode' district.

For myself and many others living in the same area, drug-use was a way to escape all the affects that grinding poverty has. 'Drugs' also were a cost-effective means of escape. A tenner will buy 4 pints, enough to have a rare happy evening, but that same tenner spent on a baggie of hash will go a hell of a lot further

It's the same overall mentality whether on the dole or managing a multi-billion pound hedge-fund...you maximise returns for the smallest possible outlay



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   




Good logic. And it is not Govt money, it is my families money.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by aLiiEn
 


More personal attacks?

Why not argue your point instead of slinging insults. No one has done that to you in this thread.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I think it is imperitive that welfare recipients and even those on unemployment receive random drug testing - for their own good. Lets face it, if they can not pass a drug screen their chances of finding a suitable job are just about nil.

Isn't the purpose of welfare and unemployment a helping hand to help people get back on their feet?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I just wanted to point out that being in reciept of welfare IS as dangerous as dealing with hazardous waste...it damages your mental health, and more than you can imagine



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
It's not a bad idea. Though I can see some people, having to choose between drugs for themselves and food for their kids choosing the drugs. My dad would have, lol.

But I think there would be some kind of riot if it is enacted. And some folks will cry over the heartlessness of it... poor kids going hungry because the baby mamas want to get stoned. Screw it. Test em all. Yes, I'm in a bad mood today.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1

Being on welfare or being on some sort of public assistance is not "dangerous" like some jobs are. But, it shouldn't be a lifestyle, either. It should be a temporary stop-gap measure to help people out until they can get back on their feet again.

But, too many don't do that. Too many live off tax-payer money simply because they can. That needs to stop.


Then maybe we shouldnt have let the corporations send all the good paying unskilled jobs (manufacturing) overseas to developing nations. And maybe we shouldnt have let the minimum wage fall so far below what it actually takes to house, cloth and feed a family. And maybe companies should be willing to train people instead of expecting that people should be able to afford a college degree when they were born into poverty. And maybe economists should not try to keep a certain percentage of the population unemployed so that the demand for labor is always lower than the supply of labor and the price of labor (wages) are controlled.

There is a problem with poverty in the US. But it isnt all the fault of the people who are poor. Have you ever seen a bell curve? There are people who are very bright at one end, and that is a small percentage, and there are people at the other end who arent so bright, and that is also a small percentage, and then the bulk of people have average intelligence. Those people on the low end deserve the right to make a living too. Face it, not everyone can go to college and get a good job, God or nature simply did not equip them for managerial work. And when you make all the jobs their intelligence or education suits them for pay a wage they cant live on, guess what you get? You guessed it, life time welfare recipients.

Not all people on welfare are just freeloaders who are just lazy worthless people. Some of them are people who are just not so bright, many are people who just never got a good public education and thus never had the ability to get into college, or people who were pretty smart but couldnt afford college, or people who are mentally ill to some degree, etc. who also made the "mistake" of having children and now they are kind of in a vicious circle. The only jobs they qualify for are jobs that pay too little to support their families, and when they run the numbers, they are better off on welfare.

Some people are the classic, people who fell on hard times and just need a hand for a while till they get on their feet.

The fact that some people manage to escape this cycle is a good thing. And I applaud them. But I do not feel that the people who cant figure out a way out of it should be "punished." Some of it isnt their fault. We didnt have to bow and scrape to corporate interests to the degree we did and make it so difficult for the uneducated to make a decent living.

And thats what the underlying feeling of your argument seems like. You want to punish people for being poor and not knowing how to get out of the situation they are in.

Are some people truly scammers that I would like to see get off their butts? Absolutely. But I think that generalizing all people who are long term welfare recipients this way is unfair, and does not take into account all the economic and human facts.





[edit on 26-3-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
That should pretty much end welfare right there. Which, IMO based on living in rural KY, is exactly what the majority of those need to have happen to them.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Pehrj]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I agree with most of your points. But, I don't want to see anyone punished. But, I would like to see people treated fairly.

If most people holding a job in this country have to be tested to get the job and/or randomly tested to keep the job, then why shouldn't the same hold true for welfare recipients? If it is required for having a job, then why shouldn't it be required to receive tax-payer funded benefits? That is the problem I have with the other side of this argument; that is what I am not getting.

Other than the fact that I am a psychopath, that is??



[edit on 3/26/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I think this is a great idea...!

i have lived in small towns and near the "less fortunate" areas, and i have seen plenty of people who get welfare checks and spend it on drugs and cars. if you drive down to the ghetto, you will see trailers and kids wearing rags, but their cars are nice and they have plenty of stuff to smoke/sniff.

If government money must be wasted... at least let it be on something legal and needed, not drugs. Most jobs require it, so why is this any different?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
If that is the case I would refer you back to my first argument. Why should the price of employment in America be invasion of your privacy?

I would suggest you consider that you DO resent it on some level, or you would not argue this;



Originally posted by skeptic1

If most people holding a job in this country have to be tested to get the job and/or randomly tested to keep the job, then why shouldn't the same hold true for welfare recipients? If it is required for having a job, then why shouldn't it be required to receive tax-payer benefits?


You are saying, "If I have to do it, they should too, or its unfair."

The bottom line is, it IS unfair. But the unfairness is that people have their privacy violated for employment.

It doesnt make work places safer. You still have to be vigilant about people coming in drunk or too tired, or people who just play around too much.

It punishes people who do "soft" drugs responsibly, after work, in the privacy of their own homes. (And might end up pushing them onto welfare) And while you may or may not agree with it, there is little difference in fact, scientifically, in terms of what it does to your body and mind to use certain drugs responsibly and alcohol responsibly.

It is expensive. If you start testing welfare recipients, not only do you end up paying more for tests that can be easily circumvented, but if you catch someone with children, and toss them off, their kids are likely to end up in foster care where it is going to cost you a lot more, AND the child has to be traumatized by being wrenched from their parents and possibly abused in care.

You arent solving any of those issues by requiring welfare recipients be tested.

All you would be doing is reacting to the basic unfairness of having your privacy violated by making everyone have their privacy violated, everyone except the people who are violating yours.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Thanks.


I understand your points. It is easier to make sense of that argument than the one with the personal attacks.

I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't see this step as a bad thing. In a lot of ways, I do believe it is needed.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Easy question........ why not? There are those that really need welfare to survive. Then there are those that abuse the system(tax dollars) and what are they contributing to their families? THAT is what welfare is. If they aren't doing drugs why wouldn't they submit to a drug test? If you are doing drugs you not only shouldn't be getting welfare you shouldn't be raising children.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Your exactly right , OP!!!


I sure would hope you dont use any drugs yourself....

I mean, this should go for all drugs, right? Nicotine, alcohol, caffiene, prescription medications....They should be booted for anyone of these drugs, because its a drug, and there all bad....right?

Or, how about this one, maybe the substances people have been using for thousands of years should be made legal, and they could actually do something helpful, and regulate the dangerous ones, including probably 80-90% of prescription meds.

Oh wait, then people could use the evil devils grass, and society as we know it would collapse in on itself.

Or wait, maybe they could throw this piece of trash legislation into the crapper, where it belongs.

Yes, invite the govt to become one more step closer to a full on nanny state.......

Hey, its for our own good, because the govt, and not you, know whats best for ya!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:06 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.


Lots of people trade their foodstamps for money or drugs. When my kids were little, the worst period of our lives was a 6 month least at The Outrigger apts. in Tulsa, OK. I couldn't count the times mostly mothers of small kids would approach me in the parking lot to buy their stamps at half price. Seriously at least once every other day.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
In a lot of ways, I do believe it is needed.


Why?

Why should I be penalised for preferring a toke and a pot of tea, rather than wine, beer or spirits?

Regardless of whether I save up for a rare treat for a theatre ticket, a few beers with my mates, or a quiet evening with a good novel, a couple of smokes-worth and a cup of earl grey...As long as I am agile-minded in the morning to work on a building site, or keep my job-hunting affairs in order, why the hell should I submit to such draconian measures?

If regulatory oversight is needed anywhere, its in the white-collar finance sectors, not the dole-queues



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni

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.


Lots of people trade their foodstamps for money or drugs. When my kids were little, the worst period of our lives was a 6 month least at The Outrigger apts. in Tulsa, OK. I couldn't count the times mostly mothers of small kids would approach me in the parking lot to buy their stamps at half price. Seriously at least once every other day.


That would be a sound argument if the majority of people actually recieved paper foodstamps. Most states now use EBT cards, which you cant exactly trade for cash.....



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentBob86
Hey, its for our own good, because the govt, and not you, know whats best for ya!


When it comes to addicts...... yes. Why would you think otherwise? Welfare isn't a lot to provide for your family and if the recipient is using any of the cash for addiction I would sure as hell hope that someone is looking out for the kids.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join