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: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
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.



So the things you like should be legislated Nationwide, and the things you don't like should be legislated by the State, or your community right?

Which is it ST. Are you for States Rights, or Big FED. You can't have it both ways.

Ziggy Strange




posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Uh, yeah airline pilots are already tested and airlines aren't government owned.... yet. The companies front the costs of testing ALL employees who work in safety sensitive positions. It's DOT required.



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

Originally posted by brainwrek
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]


Thank you for the response.

You make good rationalizations, but it's still your interpretation.

I reject your premise.
Drug prohibition was based on religious intolerance. No foundation for your argument of constitutionality. But a ready made one to defeat the law you propose, as unconstitutional.

The GOV has no business meddling with what you ingest.

To deny something granted, you have to show cause. To win in court, the onus is on the prosecution. To enforce this "law" you have to prove the "individual" is abusing benefits, directly because of the drug use.

To make the assumption, that a person that is a scofflaw, or in violation of a "health" ordinance, can be expunged from a legislated program, as suspected of abusing said program, is at best spurious, if not ignorant.

The precedent set by the enforcement of this legislation, will be challenged immediately, and go through the court system like smoke up a chimney.

It will either not pass, or be struck down.

Like it or not.

Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Thats all we need, more government intrusions in our lives. A small bill like this passing will ultimately lead to other bills further eroding our freedoms.

Yes, there are people taking advantage of the system. The large majority are not. Are you aware how much time and medical information it takes to even get SSI or SSDI or Veterans benefits? Years and stacks of documentation. It's hard for me to believe we have such liberal judges handing out cash candy to anyone asking for it. They don't. Proof beyond the shadow of doubt is neccessary to recieve these benefits Including food stamps and housing assistance.

You complain your taxes are going to drug addictied lazy people. Well guess what....your now going to pay even more taxes to provide drug testing for the millions and millions of people receiving gov. benefits.

Many people who are sick and dying smoke marijuana due to the pain levels of cancer, aids, etc. Why would you want to take that away from some of these folks that badly need a natural god given plant.

Thats right! Test everyone, put a camera in everyones bedroom, record all phone, email and text messages. Lets put up camera's like they do in the UK. Prison planet is an underated term and you want more of it. Jeezz!

And yes you guessed it! You are supporting me through your tax dollars. Should I post all my x-rays, mri's, blood work and medication lists so I can have your blessing to receive the benefits I worked for and deserve. Served my country and got my due! And I am enjoying every day I have left on this planet on YOU the taxpayer.

Oh, and by the way......most people making under 40K per household don't pay taxes anyways. That is half of the working people. Thank you rich people (and the gubermint) for your generous support through my rough time.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
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.


You want people drug tested for asprin and cough medicine???

Wow, I guess if someone is poor, he/she better not get a cold or headache around you.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I think it needs to be taken one step further.
all people living in substadized public housing should be drug tested too.

How many public housing projects in the US are NOT drug havens where drug sales and crime rule. few if any.

I know many disabled veteran that need housing but when offered public housing flatly refuse to live in gang and drug dealer infested public housing.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
I think it needs to be taken one step further.
all people living in substadized public housing should be drug tested too.

How many public housing projects in the US are NOT drug havens where drug sales and crime rule. few if any.

I know many disabled veteran that need housing but when offered public housing flatly refuse to live in gang and drug dealer infested public housing.



I was very fortunate to have some great freinds that helped me with housing. I did receive food stamps and housing assistance for two years before my benefits were awarded.

During that time, I sold nearly everything I had for further subsist.

Food stamps and housing assistance is a miserable standard of living. I can see why and how people get involved in crime and drugs just so they can afford toilet paper, cleaning supplies and other basic neccessities in life.

In other words, don't be so judgemental. When your at rock bottom and sick to boot, desparation kicks in. Survival skills change to a more unsavory way of life. Its not all fun and games being dirt poor.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Although I'm somewhat negative about the privacy issues here I suppose if you want to get a handout it can come with conditions. tough luck!
What really gets me is when you see people using wic checks for their food driving away in shiny ford explorer.



Your statement reminded me of a few times in my life that I've felt the same way. When food stamps were still given out as little books, this middle-aged woman pulled up to the distribution building driving a Mercedes, to get her food stamps. I've lived below the poverty line my entire life, and people like that make me ill. There are people with legitimate issues in trying to find work, and then there are the lifers. Welfare families that raise their kids to become welfare families. I've seen it time and again. There needs to be some serious attention, and serious reform in the programs, so that people that need them, get them, and people that don't, can't. On the other hand, one has to think, are there enough jobs for every person on welfare to go back to work? Certainly not. So what do you do? Make entire druggie families homeless because of the parent's bad life choices? Not that there aren't drug-addicted homeless families on welfare already... I think that it is a tangled mess with no easy answers. At least none that I can see.

Chrono



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Well, say bye bye to millions of stay at home moms. Sadly, people ignorance wont show them that beer and maraijuana are peoples "time off" drugs. if you have the big M in your blood, you screwed.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Well, say bye bye to millions of stay at home moms. Sadly, people ignorance wont show them that beer and maraijuana are peoples "time off" drugs. if you have the big M in your blood, you screwed.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
All I can say is "Thank God!" I hope this catches on to disability recipients too. I am so sick of paying for my fellow Americans (most of which are perfectly able to work) to sit around on their butts all day getting high while I'm busting my ass at work.

I'm speaking of something I witness first hand every day not in generalities.

If you want to get high for recreational purposes then that is your own prerogative - I'm a live and let live type guy as long as it don't hurt anyone else - but Not on my tax dollar!



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   


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.


reply to post by groingrinder
 


I completely agree but good luck getting that law passed...

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Fingersoup]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


There is some truth to what you say.........however, I don't think allowing people using drugs to be on the dole is o.k. Using money given to you, by the government, to buy drugs is one of the reasons for these people to be on welfare. I don't want to debate the drug war here, or whether or not this contributes to it, fact is people use the money to buy drugs....not better themselves.


Beer & alcohol drinkers seek and find gainful employment.. if these drug users can do it, so too can others.

Besides, the only good thing born from the bushbama afghanistan war abortion is cheaper drugs (at least here in LA).. its not like a few bong hits are driving people to a vehicular domicile.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by x2Strongx
 


I would agree to this if one thing and one thing only is applied to the bill.

If all government beneficiaries get the tests, including the politicians.



To me, I do not agree with exorbitant welfare or the illegality of drugs.

So that being said, it kind of sets up a quagmire of things I am against.

More regulation to control a regulation that is really a control network camouflaged as welfare for people.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fingersoup
All I can say is "Thank God!" I hope this catches on to disability recipients too. I am so sick of paying for my fellow Americans (most of which are perfectly able to work) to sit around on their butts all day getting high while I'm busting my ass at work.

I'm speaking of something I witness first hand every day not in generalities.

If you want to get high for recreational purposes then that is your own prerogative - I'm a live and let live type guy as long as it don't hurt anyone else - but Not on my tax dollar!


So, if someone is on disability because he/she is dying of cancer or some other type of painful ailment, you would want them cut off because they use drugs to cope with the pain?

Some disabled veteran wants to take a swig of whiskey and you'd want to cut him off?



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
My son (to cite but one example) earns good money, works hard. He saves every cent and has done so since high school when he took any job that paid during school holidays

His economies include not buying a car and living at home, despite all the inconveniences and restrictions that imposes on a young male .. in order he can continue to save for a place of his own

The government taxes him at 'single man' rate, which is higher. Don't really know why they do that

He has put no children on this planet

He's never drawn any form of welfare


In our street (which is comprised of private residences) I could point out at least three men my son's age who never work. They are at home all day. They are living on my son's labour, via the high tax he pays and they live also on the labour of other members of our immediate family who, like my son, work hard, make endless sacrifices in order to be productive and independent members of society; purchasing their own home being their goal

These unemployed males all drive late-model vehicles, usually 4-wheel drives. They hold parties, drink alcohol frequently and create noise until the early hours. My son has to get up before six a.m. to go to work. The unemployed neighbours don't. So not only is he paying for their life of ease, he has to tolerate being kept awake by them as well

These unemployed males are provided rent-assistance and multiple forms of benefits. They enjoy what appears to be a much better life than my son. They're bigger than he is and have no health or other problems that prevent them playing golf and football and partying. They go on holidays interstate. They produce a few children and the government rewards them financially for increasing the world's population

I raised my children to be productive, honest, clean. My fault, I guess



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED

I think it needs to be taken one step further.
all people living in substadized public housing should be drug tested too.



ANNED,

Don't stop at the subsidized housing. How about anything subsidized.

From Wikipedia Subsidy

* 2 Types of subsidies
o 2.1 Direct subsidies
o 2.2 Indirect subsidies
o 2.3 Labor subsidies
o 2.4 Infrastructure subsidies
o 2.5 Trade protection (import restrictions)
o 2.6 Export subsidies (trade promotion)
o 2.7 Procurement subsidies
o 2.8 Consumption subsidies
* 3 Subsidies due to the effect of debt guarantees
* 4 Controversy
* 5 Historical meaning


Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystrange
Thank you for the response.

You make good rationalizations, but it's still your interpretation.

I reject your premise.


What exactly are you rejecting? My statement regarding the general welfare clause?



Drug prohibition was based on religious intolerance.


Actually if you research the history of unconstitutional drug laws, you will see they are based in racism, not religious intolerance.


GOV has no business meddling with what you ingest.


100% correct


deny something granted, you have to show cause. To win in court, the onus is on the prosecution. To enforce this "law" you have to prove the "individual" is abusing benefits, directly because of the drug use.


Not quite true. Passing a drug screen is a stipulation, much like saying "one must actively seek employment while receiving benefits." If you dont look for work, benefits can be revoked. If you fail a drug test, benefits could also be revoked.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
This is more of what we need.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by x2Strongx
 


I don't get this for a couple of reasons.

1. There are many people who use drugs that hold down high paying jobs, drugs are not completely evil. (Note i have never taken any drug other than alcohol and caffeine)

2. Other legal drugs are far more dangerous than the illegal ones. Alcohol for example is responsible for more deaths and disease than all of the illegal drugs. Should you be required to avoid alcohol then?

It's a very stupid proposal.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join