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.

 

Neb. bill would tie welfare benefits to drug tests

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Got my support. And while we're at it can we figure out a way to not reward welfare single moms producing extra children to gain more money per month? It's a sensitive area but it needs some attention.


The fathers who keep producing welfare babies need to be sterilized. If you cannot support children and have to pawn them off on the taxpayers, then you should not be producing them.




posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I'm totaly against this.
Keep big brother out of our lives.
No; I do not recieve welfare but believe this opens new control issues.
I do however completely agree with groingrinder

"There is another group of lazy people who are taking public money that need to be tested for drugs and alcohol. POLITICIANS. Politicians need to be tested randomly for drugs and they need to blow a breathalyzer every time they come back from lunch. I definitely do not want my legislators legislating while impaired".



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
There is another group of lazy people who are taking public money that need to be tested for drugs and alcohol. POLITICIANS. Politicians need to be tested randomly for drugs and they need to blow a breathalyzer every time they come back from lunch. I definitely do not want my legislators legislating while impaired.



You make a good point on the drug testing. Why should we not require random drug tests for our elected officals? Employers around the country require drug tests on employees. Government requires drug tests on people that have been in trouble with the law.
Maybe we should start a campagin to introduce legislation in congress to address this issue!!



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
While we're talking responsibility, shouldn't the government and business be held responsible for making sure there are sufficient jobs so these people don't need welfare in the first place?

And those jobs actually pay enough to support a family?

Welfare is more of a business subsidy than a person subsidy: like restuarants expecting their customers to pay the employees wages through tips, it allows them to underpay and rake in more profit, then smugly decry the laziness of the recipients they refuse to employ.

Anyway, reality check: what do you expect them to do if barred for a year? Isn't that a recipe for crime? There are no jobs, period. If you lost yours, you'd be on welfare, too, because there aren't going to be any new jobs for a long time yet. But people still need to eat and sleep somewhere. If all legal means of survival are closed to them, they really haven't any other choice. Would you go quietly starve to death in a corner?

So remember, if you get mugged or burglarized by someone with no other options, you freely chose that result, so be prepared to take responsibility for it.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Or, they could not get barred, by not taking drugs.......that's always another option.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
Great, more drug paranoia.. like the two are mutually exclusive; as if people using plants of their choice prohibits them from looking for or finding a job.. ridiculous.

Alcohol is the worst most destructive drug available, but I'll bet they don't test for that..


Yeah give me a break. You want to know what drugs most people on welfare use ? Nicotine and alcohol. Of course those industries would have a conniption fit, if anyone suggested testing for those substances. Because even if they're not illegal, nobody on the public dole should spend money on such expensive luxuries, right ?


I doubt this bill becomes law. I see constitutional issues.

What's next, drug tests for unemployment benefits ?

I don't think it would even save the govt money. The costs to test everyone and the added bureaucracy would eat up any minimal savings.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I think It's about time that drug testing be done for welfare recipients. But won't someone please think of the children?
Mom/Dad can booze it up and party all night but it's the children that will suffer the most from this, even more than having drugged up parents.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I think this should be applied across the entire US.

If you're getting money for welfare, you should not be using illegal drugs.

If you are, then perhaps you're just scamming the taxpayers.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I don't agree with this why target one portion of the population. Not all on welfare are lazy some had circumstances that are beyond their control. My sister was fired from a job and she is 8 months pregant. She worked hard for 8 months and had to apply for welfare to get by.
Not all poor people do drugs. The people who do the most drugs are those who have the money to afford it so let's drugs tests all the rich as well!



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamseeker
 


Uh, the "rich" arent asking for government to redistribute someone elses income in the form of welfare.

While I do not believe in drug laws, look at things this way:

Testing welfare recipients is a smart idea for one simple reason: If someone is doing any form of drug, they are reducing their chances of actually getting a job since most employers require new hires to be drug tested.

Nothing wrong with doing drugs, but if you are living at the expense of the taxpayer because you cant find a job, doing anything that would reduce your chances of finding employment and getting off the list of parasites who live off of others, you are being irresponsible and costing others money.

Welfare itself is unconstitutional, but as long as its being jammed down our throats, government has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the taxpayer.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Thanks for the thread OP.

Have any of you stopped to calculate which costs more?
It would take an agency, and then litigation, and appeals, and in the end...

The problem is, it's illegal, and unconstitutional.

More GOV, more draconian laws. Perfect patriotic dream come true. Drug tests as a litmus test for being denied benefits. What about our inalienable rights, are they next?

Alcoholics have to be cut also right?

What about fat people? surely they must eat too much, they must be stealing or double dipping.

I'd like to make it so tweakers can't have drivers licenses.
How about guns, can addicts have guns or are we just going to declare them compromised citizens?

How much should we take from them?

How about no guns for alcoholics, people taking xanax and other depression medicines, and smokers. 10 bucks a pack. Welfare recipients should not smoke, they can't afford it.

Drug addicts get methadone on the dole, we should stop that silliness right now.

How about mandated abortion, and sterilization?

Better yet, should we just kill them all?

Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
what is considered welfare exactly? Is it food stamps, medicaid or cash benefits. I know social security and social security disablity is not considered welfare. Is unemployment welfare?
Who pays for all the drug testing? It is going to cost something; either the tax payers will have to pay it, the government or the people getting the drug tests!



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Just becuase you can't pass a drug test doesn't mean thier buying drugs with food stamps or Med care.

And who really cares if someone is smoking weed 85% of Americans smoke weed and it should be legal in the 1st place.

Weed is good for the body no matter what they tell you, remeber the government is telling you its bad just like THOSE WMD in Iraq.

Its all lies thats all they do 3 years its all over anyways



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
What a great idea, taking away aid from people who need it most. If someone is spending their welfare check to pay for meth before food or shelter, they're going to die soon anyway, regardless of where their money's coming from.

I don't agree with taking away aid from someone who needs it, even if they are a drug user. Are you telling me that none of you here on ATS have ever smoked pot? You may say oh, it's not for people who buy pot -- it's for people who spend all of the money we give them through taxes on heroin or crack. Well, drug tests include pot, and I don't think people who only test positive for marijuana will be given any breaks over people who test only for, say, coc aine. Also, if someone were taking something like Ibprofen or Sudafed, they could fail a drug test. MANY legal substances produce positive results on drug tests. I think the possibility of people testing positive for drug use when they actually AREN'T spending their welfare check on illegal drugs is extremely high.

Also, drug tests aren't free. While money would potentially be saved by giving less of it to people who test positive for drug use, money is also being spent on testing people in the first place. Let's say one out of fifteen people tests positive for some type of drug use - does that one person's welfare check equate to the cost of fifteen drug tests? Do you know how much a drug test costs?

Furthermore, what do you think people who are using their welfare checks to buy drugs are going to do when that cash flow goes away? Do you think they're going to quit trying to obtain a substance that they are physically addicted to, to the point of using money to buy drugs instead of food or general improvement of life? Or do you think they'll get that money one way or another, whether by breaking into your car and pawning your stereo, selling drugs, or whatever else results in instant cash? Do you think that giving people in poverty even LESS money is going to encourage them to start playing by the rules? Or would it perhaps induce further desperation?

Have you ever met someone who was actually physically addicted to a drug? Do they seem happy to you? Do you think they enjoy giving away all they have so they can feed an addiction? You think they WANT to be addicted to a drug? Do you think it's easy to quit once you're physically addicted to something? You realize that once you're actually physically addicted to something, your body NEEDS that drug, or you'll get sick, possibly even die, right?


No, I don't think the answer is to take away help from people who need it the most. You may think drug addicts are lazy and don't deserve help. I think drug addicts are people too, people who actually do need help. I do not think someone who is addicted to drugs is beneath me. We are all human. Yes, it's DUMB to do drugs that are addictive. However, in poverty, drugs are a.) all around you, wherever you go and b.) one of the only ways to make enough money to make a substantial difference in your life. Do you think someone with no money is going to get on his feet by working an honest job? How many jobs are there in the inner city where you live? What if you had two options:
1.) Work some #ty job most of the day almost every day and barely make enough to get by or
2.) Put a few hours into dealing drugs a few times a week and make enough money to pay all your bills for the next month
Which would you go with? Honestly? Staying away from drugs in the poverty class, much less any social class, is difficult enough as it is. So let's make things even harder, eh?

If you WERE to drug test people for welfare, and they tested positive, and it was determined they were addicted to drugs, the money from their check should be put towards rehab, not taken away for a year to be spent on... what? It's not like you'd get that money back. It's not like you'll pay less taxes.


Don't be so hasty to label people. Further separation of the people isn't what we need.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystrange
Thanks for the thread OP.


The problem is, it's illegal, and unconstitutional.



What part of the Constitution authorizes welfare expenditures in the first place?

Please refrain from using the general welfare clause, since that relates to the welfare of the nation, not the individual .



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
This should go nation wide it is the best idea I have heard in a long time. But the progressives will stop it trust me they want you hooked on drugs and firmly planted to the American governments tit. Their power comes form the population being weak not strong.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I would be all for it if they meant all drugs (alcohol, pills, cough medicine, aspirin, coc aine, meth, heroin, etc.), not just cannabis. But, you know they can only mean cannabis because it's the only drug that remains traceable in your system for a month, while all those other drugs dissipate rapidly.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek

Originally posted by ziggystrange
Thanks for the thread OP.


The problem is, it's illegal, and unconstitutional.



What part of the Constitution authorizes welfare expenditures in the first place?

Please refrain from using the general welfare clause, since that relates to the welfare of the nation, not the individual .


Show me where I said it did?

But to answer at the same IQ level:

The same part that authorizes you to perform mandated drug tests.


Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


Testing welfare applicants isnt a constitutional issue. Nor would a warrant be required. It's a stipulation in order to receive a taxpayer funded check.

People are free to back out and not receive welfare any time, hence the 4th Amendment doesnt apply in this case.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by brainwrek]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
They should also start testing politicians for drugs & alcohol.
Including congress & President.
Two strikes and you're out!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join