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: 9
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Actually, I'd take it a step further and put a limit on how many kids they can have while on welfare. Anything over . . . say two kids then you get know more additional money.




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JMasters
So far the only ones saying this is a bad thing... DO DRUGS! Not exactly a source we should take seriously.


Not true. I dont do drugs. I barely drink. And I dont think it is a good idea for all the reasons economic and otherwise I laid out in other posts.

There are lots of very good practical reasons to end the war on drugs. That people who do not do drugs themselves recognize. Many of them economic reasons, others Constitutional reasons.

It is exactly the sort of easy generalization that you are making here, coupled with no attempt to think past the knee jerk reaction that makes us want to punish freeloaders, (which is not all bad btw) that allows us to rationalize giving up rights and freedoms in exchange for nothing of value at all.

We should do what we can to end "free loading." But the biggest free loaders of all are at the top echelons of society, not the bottom. We end up directing all of our anger at freeloading in general at the bottom level of society, and spend no time or energy asking what the heck is going on at the top. With the people who are not only freeloading, but stealing our freedoms and rights along with out money.

Our anger is misdirected. And it is purposely misdirected. If we keep squabbling among our selves like a pack of wild dogs over kitchen scraps, we will never notice that someone else is making off with the whole damn kitchen.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


it did to me at the time of writing, but now i re-read it I agree with you..

sorry



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen smith
 


I was just making sure I wasn't missing something.

That kind of confused me.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I hate it when people bark out that things are unconstitutional. Learn what is and what isnt first

Welfare is a privilege not a right.



Sure thing... We agree

We are both putting our money into it, so we have equal parts valid arguments to bring to bear.




With any service those who enact it can set down rules and regulations. If you dont want to abide by those rules and regulations then dont sign the paper.


Yes, however, when it is a "Public Service" provided by the "Government", it has to also pass muster with the "Constitution", or it is by definition illegal.

Now... privatize welfare, and have at it. But not as long as it is a Government ran Public Service.





It has nothing to do with constitutionality and everything to do with choices that YOU make, if you cant stay clean, DONT get on the program.



See your perspective here completely negates the fact, that anyone under this suggested plan can actually use many drugs, legal and illegal without any fear of penalty.

When I was in the Navy there were several people who used coc aine... they said they had preferred to use Marijuana instead, however it stays in your system longer, and coc aine would be gone in a few days. So, how would you deal with this? If you can't doesn't it condone one drug while penalizing another?

What about Alcohol? This probably falls into the exact same category as other illegal drugs... hell it USED TO BE ILLEGAL. So, how can we test for this? If we can't... doesn't it negate the bill?


You see, this isn't a question to be solved with the brute force method of emotional fueled morality. The question is,

1. Is it Constitutional being it's a Public Service ran by the GOV.
2. What is the impact... meaning will people use more alcohol and coc aine as opposed to other drugs to circumvent the system? Will it in fact increase the drug war with mexico because of this?

What are the actual impacts of the measure. You don't want to go off half-cocked.



Alcohol and tobacco arent the greatest things in the world, in fact a lot would argue that alcohol is worse and in a lot of ways it is. So I would say if the person has a history of alcohol abuse or related crimes, then that would constitute testing as well, after all abuse is abuse.


But we are talking zero tolerance policy here.... we need to be able to say the same thing for all the drugs... test for 1... test for another. Can you test for alcohol? I don't know.




Smokes on the other hand, come on , now you are just throwing out random stuff to try and inflate your point. Caffeine and Cigs arent really going to make a person unfit to work, or unable to hold a job.




Well, that depends on the job. And Cigs are expensive... my argument is I don't care if they get high... I don't want my money funding it. If they need to get a fix... cigs or otherwise, I'm not funding it.






You can argue then that it excludes people who need welfare because of they have to conform to a set of rules. Well, guess what, if you really need welfare and you arent going to abuse it, them taking a hair sample or pee test every so often isnt going to bother you at all.......again, thats assuming that you arent addicted to drugs, or planning on abusing the system.


Once again... your overly moralistic stance is something I detest as it is counterproductive to the liberty of the conservative individual such as myself.

The issue at hand is my money. I could care less about what anyone does with their money.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Yes! Please!

You'd be amazed at the neighborhood I used to live in. Half of it was unemployed, not that they couldn't work, they just would rather drink and dope up. Yet they always had money.

How you ask? Easy. Selling food/welfare credits. Food stamps can be sold dollar for dollar, even with the "Quest" welfare debit cards. And they will work for cash too.

I once was in a convenience store, behind a couple I had seen there before. The particular day was already a bad day, since I had just sent in my check to pay my taxes. Now this couple, which I've never seen with kids, had a counter full of chips and other munchies, and soda. They used the Quest welfare card to pay for it. This is what we pay taxes for!

With these cards, you can by any foodstuffs, soda, and other drinks, as long as it's not beer. And I thought I was told at one time that paper products could be purchased too.

Drug test these people, and take away their freedom to buy candy, chips, soda, and other NON-ESSENTIAL products!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
First, I have not touched a drug in more than 20 years. I drink maybe a half dozen bottles of beer in a year.

Having gotten that out of the way, people are not exhibiting much common sense on this issue, nor are you considering the direct consequences of this.

Obama, the President of the United States is a self confessed drug user who used both Marijuana and Cocaine. I have no idea at what point in his life he quit, but do all of you consider him a useless drug user? He committed the exact same crime regardless of when he did it.

Most people who use drugs, use them recreationaly just like many of you folks use alcohol. Most are just Potheads using Weed in the same way many of you use far more dangerous prescriptions legally because you had the money to go and whine to your doctor until he gave them too you. How many of you hateful people are on mood altering drugs right now, raise your hand.

Alcohol is by far the most dangerous drug known to man and destroys more lives than any other drug by far. How many of you drink to the point of drunkenness once a week, raise your hand. You are by definition addicted to a powerful drug if you do. The chances of you going on to become a drunk are very high as are the chances you will abuse a child or a spouse. You say, oh but I only get drunk on weekends, I don't have a problem. The statistics don't support that.

So what happens when they cut off the lifeline to these people, many of which have lived their entire lives in poverty going from one minimum wage job to another? What happens to their families, their children? The truth is these people are often better Parents than those who would judge them and take their children away.

This will flood the system with children with no homes. How many of you will take them in? These will be children from bad neighborhoods who have grown up in gangland. They will be poorly educated and their needs will be great. Many will be abused in the Foster Care system by people who take them in for the money they are paid. Many will be bounced from home to home under the care of people who don't give a damn about them.

Paying these people to care for these kids will cost far more than leaving them with their Parents who happen to use Weed instead of being Drunks like the Politicians who put them out in the street. I don't know the numbers now, but in the late 1980's I saw a survey of people in the US Congress. Over 80% of them admitted to drinking regularly and a large number of them met the criteria of being Alcoholics. Were you aware of this? Alcoholics are among the most likely to abuse children also and many of the Foster Parents are likely to turn out to be Alcoholics. Where does that put the children????

Unemployment Insurance is Insurance. Withholding that would be fraud. The States are just trying to get out of their obligations because they blew their money on Parks, Concert Halls, Buildings named after Politicians and useless Programs they invented to give jobs to their family and friends. They have mishandled their finances to the point of criminality and now they want to take it out on the poorest of the poor. The Lady who brings me my coffee at the Cafe down the street works harder than most people who earn ten times what she does. That is who they want to lay their misuse of their funds on. How sad that many of you can't see that.

I am as anti-drug as anyone here, but I have a heart and a mind that can see beyond my ridiculous prejudices and my bigotry to the truth that these are people no better or no worse than I am. I can also see that these people who have suffered their whole lives in poverty need a helping hand right now and not a slap in the face from some Politician who drinks a fifth every Saturday night and has the nerve to judge them.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 



I used to work at the local drug store and I had a co-worker who was on the food stamp card. She would constantly offer x amount of monies on the card in exchange for cash. She offered me $30 on her card once for $20 cash! I told her thanks but NO THANKS! It's fraud and wrong on so many levels. She would also use the cash portion of the card that covers non food items for non-necessity items ranging from perfumes to camera accessories!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


You failed to see any of my point, and by the way lol im a strict conservative, which is why im in favor of having something like this in place.

Kudos to your time in the Navy , i spent my time in the Marines, i also know the amount of drug use that goes on in the military.

2 yes of course they can test for coc aine and alcohol, like i said coc aine in hair and alcohol in your urine, they can test back up to 4 days for that, and with the addition of random testing it adds to the risk of being caught.

I do agree that it should pass constitutionally however, it hasnt stopped the government from doing A LOT of the things that they do illegally, if they are going to do it anyway, might as well make it something worth while....(thats a joke) besides, if they couldnt do it, they wouldnt be trying to do it now.

on the issue of being a drug war with mexico, im not concerned , being that ive lived close to the border most of my life and have family in the border patrol, it should be no shock to you to report that we have been in a drug war with Mexico for a long long time.

Just one thing to add, the moralistic view is one of the KEYS to conservatism, dont forget that. And being that the issue IS your money, this is a plan that you should be for, considering its YOURS and MY money it would be saving from being blown on either drugs, or enabling the people that abuse them



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Drug testing in the first place is an invasion of privacy, even for employers. If you are earning money which shouldn't be taxed in the first place, you are contributing to society and are free to do what you want. If the government screws up the economy it is not your fault you lost your job unless they were looking to unload you anyway. I have to say most drugs aren't any worse for you than TV and fast food, which are as addictive and harmful. The problem is a vicious cycle that they are going to complete with this legislation. Since most employers test for drugs you can't get a good job and if you have no income from the state like they want to do you'll turn to crime to pay for it and we all suffer. If only we had a respectable socioeconomic system we could just do away with welfare and drug laws and this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by CapsFan8]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by CapsFan8]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Typically, it's not the employer who requires the drug test, it's the insurance company. Would you want a doped up crane operator working near you? And welfare recipients aren't earning money, they are being lazy and refusing to work. They can take the test if they wanna take the money.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Mekanic
 


...and you would rather have them and their children homeless and without food on the streets? Explain that to me. How will that help?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CapsFan8
Drug testing in the first place is an invasion of privacy, even for employers. If you are earning money which shouldn't be taxed in the first place, you are contributing to society and are free to do what you want. If the government screws up the economy it is not your fault you lost your job unless they were looking to unload you anyway. I have to say most drugs aren't any worse for you than TV and fast food, which are as addictive and harmful. The problem is a vicious cycle that they are going to complete with this legislation. Since most employers test for drugs you can't get a good job and if you have no income from the state like they want to do you'll turn to crime to pay for it and we all suffer. If only we had a respectable socioeconomic system we could just do away with welfare and drug laws and this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by CapsFan8]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by CapsFan8]




What do you mean you cant get a good job? Yes im sure you cant get a good job if they test you and you are on drugs.......but doesnt that make sense? I know plenty of people with great jobs.......in fact , come to think of it, they all have to be drug tested......and surprise surprise, they dont do drugs............funny how that works



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
First, I have not touched a drug in more than 20 years. I drink maybe a half dozen bottles of beer in a year.

Having gotten that out of the way, people are not exhibiting much common sense on this issue, nor are you considering the direct consequences of this.

Obama, the President of the United States is a self confessed drug user who used both Marijuana and Cocaine. I have no idea at what point in his life he quit, but do all of you consider him a useless drug user? He committed the exact same crime regardless of when he did it.



Was he on welfare when he did those drugs? No? Doesn't count.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Mekanic
 


...and you would rather have them and their children homeless and without food on the streets? Explain that to me. How will that help?


I would rather they get off their lazy rear ends and get jobs like the rest of us have to. I bust my butt every day to support my family and keep a roof over their heads. I wasn't born into privilege. I lived on welfare too, when I was a teenager. My dad struggled to find a job, and rationed out what we got for credit to make it work. Believe me, I refuse to live off the government, and I really sick of the leaches who live off of my tax dollar.

That's what I'd rather. But I'll tell you what, if you're so all for it that they continue to live off of our money, that we work for, and continue to do drugs, that they SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD, then by all means, YOU support them!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by aLiiEn
 


They start with something that appears reasonable and something that the majority of the people will go along with.

After they have you peeing to get paid the next step will be something a little more invasive.

No chip no job. No pledge of loyalty no life.

If you will pee on command what won't you do?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I've seen a lot of misinfo since I last posted. Since when does a "service" provided by the government mean that recipients of said service cannot be drug tested? I'm not sure there's a government employee that is not drug tested on a regular basis (at least in the blue collar world). Does that make it illegal and unconstitutional? The next time my unit requires a drug test, can I tell them to f-off, it's a violation of my rights?

People that desire the extra money are requesting it from the government. The government is saying, "In order to get our money, you have to abide by a certain set of rules." There is nothing wrong with this. It's the same principle for any kind of monetary handout - scholarships, grants, etc, in both government and private sectors.

As has been stated before, several times, welfare is NOT a right. You are not guaranteed welfare, and the state does not have to provide it to you. It is a service, and it being a service comes with responsibility to meet their requirements to elect to use said service. It's not about safety or the well-being of the welfare recipients, it's the attempt to help those that actually NEED the money, and aren't blowing it all on drug sales. I would much rather the mom of four that's struggling to make ends meet gets my money than the kid getting stoned on the couch that could easily go get a job, but has found an easier lifestyle through welfare and section 8 housing.

This isn't about drugs being right or wrong, it's about the money going to where it's intended to go. It's about supporting someone long enough to get them back on their feet, and letting drugs siphon away at your money is not the way to go. You could say the same for alcohol and smokes, but in all reality, those aren't illegal. It's all about what's illegal and what's not, what's considered acceptable. It's not necessarily fair that the drunk can keep going out and getting drunk, while the junkie can't get high, but that's the nature of the beast. If you don't want to play the game, you don't have to. There are other options in the private sector to turn to. Hell, I hear Obama's giving away houses and other such novelties for free!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn
 


Yes, drug testing of welfare recipients is going to lead to chip implantation of the entire populance and no one will question it at all. :shk:

Would you all have the same objections if a private charity providing assistance to those who needed help required random drug testing of those seeking assistance? Or is the problem just with government provided assistance and drug testing?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I think this is a terrible idea.
1) Do you realize how much a drug test costs?
2) Crimes will escalate / Gun rights are being restricted...think about that.
3) When we all are required to submit to drug tests to get a tax return, who will cry unconstitutional then?
I worked for the federal government and was required to submit for drug testing because I drove a government vehicle with passengers in it. The other employees that worked there did not because their job description did not say that had to have passengers in the government vehicle. (How is that fair?)
You complain about "your" tax dollars going to welfare recipients...I complain that my tax dollars are going to some rich executive that bombed his company intentionally to get a bailout? Why aren't we requiring these execs to submit??? This is stupid legislation to drive a bigger wedge into society!
I am more in favor of requiring XX amount of community service for the welfare check, but not un-fathomable hours. Maybe 4 hours a week at a local food bank/shelter. Just plain stupidity to allow the government another opportunity to infringe on our personal rights as humans.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JMasters
 


He was attending school on Student Loans he did not pay until recently according to him. I would not be surprised if he was on Food Stamps. He quit a $12,000 a year job in New York to go to Harvard and I don't have a clue how he pulled that one off, do you? He had a Sugar Daddy some where and I wonder how many of our Nations poor have the same. Remember he was using drugs while in school, by his own admission.

The saying about people pulling the log out of their own eyes comes to mind. I have no problem with having a President honest enough to admit he is a normal human who makes mistakes. Many mistakes people make are not illegal but are far worse than some poor person who smokes Pot that lost their job at Burger King.

Unemployment is also NOT Welfare. It is Insurance. If they don't pay they are the same as a crooked Insurance Company that does not pay its claims.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join