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.

 

RED ALERT=Neb. bill would tie welfare benefits to drug tests

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
First, let me start by saying, YES something has to be done to stop food stamps and cash assistance moneys from being spent on drugs and candy bars. So to make welfare benefits subject to random drug screens sounds good right?? Maybe not!!!! Please let me explain:-)

Lets talk about our freedom and our civil rights for a sec. I have a few thoughts here
1. I personally don't do drugs. I'm 52 years old and have not smoked a doobie/joint/blunt LOL since I was 23 years old. But if I wanted to do so in the privacy of my own home that should be my right to do so and I should not be threatened with jail time or loss of an income (if I were on Welfare and I am not) just because I smoked a joint. Now if I used my welfare moneys to get that joint then I am in the wrong and should be punished just as someone uses there welfare money to sit in a bar should be also.

Lets look at this, A guy works for 10 years and has a great credit score. Has a new car, a nice house and is living the American dream. Well then, the company that this guy work for goes belly up and now the man is out of a job. well, he gets unemployment for x amount of weeks but that finely runs out. At first the bank sort of try's to defer things a bit giving the guy a chance to find other work but no work and no job. Soon enough his credit score is poop paper and he lost the car. Then he get a good job interview and is told his credit score will play a role if he gets the job or not, is this fair?? The problem is we gave away our freedom and that is what started that ball rolling.

Next, some people think if they take our guns away there will be less problems. LOL the only problem will be the criminals will have all the guns and we will be left with nothing!!!!!!!!!!! Here is the problem, you give these guys an inch and they will take a hundred miles of your civil rights and freedoms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I would agree to random drug testing for welfare benefits on one condition, and that is that the buck stops there. I just don't think it will guys!!!!!!!!!

1. My credit report is my business not yours, pretty soon my sexual preference, my favorite things to do, my food choices and tobacco habits will be a factor in giving me the job??????????

2. You will not take my guns, got that!!!!!!! I may need them if you try and and mess with #2 and #3

3. What I do in my home is my business and not yours as long as I don't break laws. AND, if I wanted to burn a blunt in my home THAT SHOULD BE MY RIGHT and it is not.




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
then nebraska better fall in line with california and start the process of serious legalization.

imo
any other drug IE meth, coke, etc should be illegal...and those on social programs shouldn't use them. or especially should not. and honestly, the vast majority of them DO.

and i'm on medi-cal and i get food stamps, i just know too many people using the system are on drugs and/or selling them.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by intothelight
 


This is way off the mark. Most benefits such as food stamps and public assistance are intended for children for the most part.

So this is to say, if you are a child, and your parent is a drug user, you are prohibited from eating, and having the simple mainstays for living, such as: a roof over your head, and a faucet with running water.

Surely they will rethink this. The kids in this scenario are the ones who will pay for their parent's faults.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by intothelight
 


This is way off the mark. Most benefits such as food stamps and public assistance are intended for children for the most part.

So this is to say, if you are a child, and your parent is a drug user, you are prohibited from eating, and having the simple mainstays for living, such as: a roof over your head, and a faucet with running water.

Surely they will rethink this. The kids in this scenario are the ones who will pay for their parent's faults.



YOUR RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I guess the solution is this:

If you are on public assistance and have a child and test positive for drugs - you lose the money AND your kids.

Simple - issue solved.

A child should not have to grow up in a home with drug users PERIOD!

Dorian Soran



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


So what you are saying here is that the child is better off eating in a house with a drug addict parent than not eating in a house with a drug addict parent?

Sorry, that just doesn't sound right.

The child is already suffering by having a drug addict for a parent.



CHILDREN NEED TO BE REMOVED

FROM THIS TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT!!!!!!!!!!!

If the parent fails a drug test the child needs to be removed from the home immediatly. His/Her return should be contingent upon successful drug rehabilitation by the parent[s]. If it takes years,so be it.



Just my 2 cents. Peace



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
You guys are missing the point of my post however:

1. NO CHILD should ever be subjected to drugs in or out of there home and to see there parents on drugs has got to be traumatic in the least.

2. It would be safe to say, that if you are selling food stamps for drugs you are a DRUG ADDICT and in need of help.

But lets take kids out and drug addicts of this for a min. Lets say this:

A man and wife go to work every day. They have no kids but both are working dead end jobs just to get by. They don't make enough money but they get food stamps to help out. They are not drug addicts but like a few beers after work. They live a clean life and follow the laws best they can. However, every once in a while a friend stops by and they burn a joint or two sleep it off and head out to work the next day. OR leave out the pot thing because alcohol is a drug!!!! So my question is should they be subject to the loss of there civil rights because some jack ass drug addicts sell there stuff for crack????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[edit on 17-1-2010 by intothelight]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
What bill are you talking about?

There are so many people against the abuse of the welfare system that they elect officials to restrict it as much as possible.

I was on unemployment for two months, a meager check and requirement of 10 confirmed job interviews per week with different companies. It's a job just to retain unemployment in Nebraska for what amounts to almost nothing if you're the sole provider of a family of four.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Granted , alcohol is a drug , but it's still legal. Marijuana on the other hand is not. At least not yet. Yours is a fair enough argument , but you're giving hypothetical examples of yourself and I don't know if that's helping your argument.

Besides which, I don't think your argument and the proposed law are on the same level. The proposed law is aimed at the type of people you are not.


I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything, I'm just trying to keep it all relevant.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
If you have the extra money for drugs then I don't think you need the states help to put food on your table. Why should I need to help somebody pay for their food when they have decided drugs are more important then them eating?


I hope this passes all over. For the people who don't like it, don't use state assistance! Nobody is forcing you to.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
What bill are you talking about?

There are so many people against the abuse of the welfare system that they elect officials to restrict it as much as possible.

I was on unemployment for two months, a meager check and requirement of 10 confirmed job interviews per week with different companies. It's a job just to retain unemployment in Nebraska for what amounts to almost nothing if you're the sole provider of a family of four.



This one

hosted.ap.org...



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
Granted , alcohol is a drug , but it's still legal. Marijuana on the other hand is not. At least not yet. Yours is a fair enough argument , but you're giving hypothetical examples of yourself and I don't know if that's helping your argument.

Besides which, I don't think your argument and the proposed law are on the same level. The proposed law is aimed at the type of people you are not.


I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything, I'm just trying to keep it all relevant.


LOL Well the truth is I don't smoke pot or do drugs, I'm more worried that this could lead to more rights being taken away from people who don't deserve it.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Sorry guys while I agree with the OP for the most part I do have one problem. If I want to work I have to pass a drug test. My father is a cop and he has told me how bad it is to see kids growing up with addicts as parents. If they want quit for themselves then perhaps some initiative is the right course of action. I have rarely heard of any welfare reform that might work. This actually sounds like the right course. Though if you fall on hard times maybe an exemption is in order. Maybe they should institute time limits on federal funding before you start being tested. But there are too many people who are on welfare for just years and years. I say test em. I work and pass drug tests. They should at least be doing one.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by intothelight
...I'm more worried that this could lead to more rights being taken away from people who don't deserve it.


As stated by the article:


But the only state that has adopted such a measure, Michigan, had the law thrown out by a federal judge because it allowed for random testing without justification. The judge ruled that Michigan's law violated constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.


LB 940 for those that are curious: Nebraska bills search engine

People that are active in national politics should be just as active in local politics.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I believe that all states should institute a policy like this. Welfare is good...if used properly. Many people abuse it and become dependent on it or should I say their habbit(s) become dependent on it. I fit pretty closly into the description the OP gave except I'm still employed, I've come on hard times in the past and had to request public assistance, I used it till I didn't need it any more.

I complied with all guidlines for assistance and didn't use any of the money to buy any mind altering substances legal or otherwise. If I ever have to receive welfare again I'll do the same thing. I would rather work my tail off for a wage then pocket the "free" check from the gubment. I wonder how many millions of welfare dollars go to waste every month on the purchase of dope. The test should aslo contain a zero tollerance policy as well...if you come up hot you lose your benifits for life, no appeals.

Edit to add, I don't believe this would constitute a violation of rights either because it's not a right to have to taxpayers support an illegal substance habbit. So the whole rights issue here is a moot point as far as I'm concerned.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by alyosha1981]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join