Mandatory drug testing for those receiving public assistance.

Originally posted by Berserker01
reply to post by paradiselost333

 

If that is Facisim then I guess I'm a Facist.

I piss hot at work I get fired, no more income for me.

reply to post by happygolucky


I think all random drug testing wrong "Invasion of privacy" unless you show up at work on drugs/drunk ect. what I do at home is my business as long it does not effect my work or put anyone else in danger! so this is the same thing IMO ok maybe not facism but.........

[edit on 11-2-2010 by paradiselost333]

forcing a person to "give up" part of them is self incrimination.
plain and simple. Random drug tests, breath-alizers, DNA or whatever they will throw out next
you can say well they're high, drunk, etc so they deserve it
so I guess they are presumed guilty first, too
As freedom minded as this site is, I am constantly amazed when people are willing to add more gov't (oversee the drug testing) waste my money (pay for the drug tests) and then allow some random gov't agent to make the determination of guilt or innocence (case worker denys case) without due process as long as it does not effect them. get a grip people! when they start denying employment to you due to being to fat or a smoker (uninsurable health risk), old (overqualified), too young (won't work for starvation wages) what are you gonna do?

oh, wait, its already status quo, never mind

dr

reply to post by darkelf


I am ambivilant about the drug testing. I think a more effective solution is a hard limit on how long you can be on it, say two years.

If you can't feed your children, they should be taken away from you, plain and simple. If someone has to have their kids fed in school, they should be taken away, period. If they have to live in an orphanage, fine.

Back in the 60's William F. Buckley ran for Mayor of NYC. One of his proposals was to take folks on public assistance after a period of time to have to go live in a government facility (a welfare camp if you will). The familys would be given a safe environment, good schools and the familys would receive training, in the trades, college, etc. There would also be out placement services to get these folks jobs after 2 years.

It was called a concentration camp and pretty much ended his run (not that he had a chance to get elected anyway). I know that there are real issues with such a system and I am unsure if I agree with it. It is hard to argue however that the kids would be better off living in a system like that than where they currently live.

So now only the working class and people who are not disabled and such will be able to tap into the drug world? sheeze, I have yet to meet a Lawyer or Judge that has not indulged in pot or worse at some point.

The drug cartels will not be happy with this, they will have their say when they no longer have clients to buy their goods and services.

This would be a disaster for the CIA drug connection, I don't think it will pass, some of the legislators don't know anything about the real world.

Some obvious hypocrites in this thread, so transparent.

You people better pray your damn assess off that you never get injured or turn up in a bad way, as such to require outside assistance. When you do, you better not afford yourselves any luxuries on my dime, because I don't tolerate this kind of venomous hypocrisy.

Assistance is given in gross, as much or as less as necessary, to provide someone the ability to financially support themselves, enough at least to ensure a decent quality of life is attained.

It's not just a couple bucks for a bottle dirty water and a piece of bread to survive. It's meant to sustain a certain quality of life, for any amount of time, because that's what we do here in America and in other countries.

So if any you venom-spewing mouth flappers get government assistance, you better hide your damn TVs, internet and whatever else you have for "luxuries".

reply to post by paradiselost333


To bad your opinion is wrong.

I work around weapons and ammo. If you, a regular pot smoker (for example) have worked for me for years, one day you shoot me in the leg and you come up hot, what do you think could have been a solution to that?

If you say random drug screening then BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Random drug screening is a deterant. For the most part it works. You do the same with public assistance and it will do the same.

reply to post by Berserker01


You work around weapons & ammo, I do believe that a co-worker "smoking pot" isn't going to add any critical consequences to you, considering your current situation.

What if someone shoots you in the leg, and doesn't piss hot?

A deterrent... Yeah, our country is big on that now. Some good it has done for the past 50 years or so. When the drug testing first came out, it was sold to the public by getting them scared of "Pilots doing drugs". So everybody had to agree with it, nobody could disagree with a pilot not getting drug screened. Now, today, we have people getting drug screened to be a cashier at Gap.

What's going on here? What are people so f-ing afraid of?

[edit on 11-2-2010 by SyphonX]

Who is this really going to hurt? Children. The kids of families addicted on welfare. Perhaps this is just another way to get a boost to the family services and the foster care programs.

Remember that there are scores of people who use marijuana as a pain killer, a natural method in lue of costly and toxic pharmaceuticals.

I can see it now, 90 year old cancer patient goes to prison because they find pot in their system. This will affect the innocent users rather than the professional drug worlders, they will have ways around the testing, they will get away with it somehow they always do.

I agree with this and hope it goes nationwide.

Test them, test them often. If they fail, drop them off public assistance and keep them off. Any idiot must learn at some point to prioritize. And when dependent on others to feed you, it is a damned fine time to leave your bong in the dresser drawer.

Originally posted by dr dodge
forcing a person to "give up" part of them is self incrimination.
plain and simple. Random drug tests, breath-alizers, DNA or whatever they will throw out next
you can say well they're high, drunk, etc so they deserve it
so I guess they are presumed guilty first, too
As freedom minded as this site is, I am constantly amazed when people are willing to add more gov't (oversee the drug testing) waste my money (pay for the drug tests) and then allow some random gov't agent to make the determination of guilt or innocence (case worker denys case) without due process as long as it does not effect them. get a grip people! when they start denying employment to you due to being to fat or a smoker (uninsurable health risk), old (overqualified), too young (won't work for starvation wages) what are you gonna do?

oh, wait, its already status quo, never mind

dr

You are of the wrong mindset here. I said in my comment that "If you take Government money." Meaning if I am self suffiecient then leave me the heck alone. BUT, if you stick your lazy hand out for free money then you better follow the rules SLAVE. It's the difference between those that are grown up and step up to take care of themsleves and those that still need parents (the government) to hold their hand. If you are not self suffiicient then you have to live by mom and dads rules. It is no different in any family structure.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by trueperspective]

Require drug testing; what about cigs and alcohol
cigs are the most addicting thing I know of.
Test for them all or not at all.

They Need to require proof of citizenship first
this will save a Very lot more money.

Either way, to me, it's an invasion of privacy
AnD it's big bro in action.
Give up a little freedom at a time.

btw; Many of these so called welfare leeches have been working their whole lives then
WhaM along comes cancer or whatever. They fighting for their lives and need assistance for awhile.

Beware it could be you someday ...

Let's talk about what no one else has talked about.

Why is there no program to help these people that get addicted to drugs? Alcoholism is a disease, not an addiction. Pretty sure drug addiction falls in the same category.

What is going to be accomplished by refusing someone aid if they test positive for drugs? How far do we want to take that? How about..

If you go to the hospital you have to be tested before any injuries or ailments are treated, and if you test positive you have to walk out without treatment, regardless of your ailment. Cuz' ya know.. heaven forbid someone gets by on my dime!! Dur hur!!

Yeah, let's just refuse them completely and let them wander around, dying on the cold streets, piling up corpses at the dawn of every day. Thank God they didn't receive MY money though!!

reply to post by SyphonX


Forgive me, I forgot this was ATS and anyone who doesn't agree with a certain statement are most likely to take a statement and not be able to think past the words they read.

Maybe someone else can explain it to you. I don't have time to draw it in crayon for you to understand it better.

I'll go you one better.Not only should these parasites be drug tested,if your on welfare then you should be on mandatory birth control.

Originally posted by SyphonX
Some obvious hypocrites in this thread, so transparent.

You people better pray your damn assess off that you never get injured or turn up in a bad way, as such to require outside assistance. When you do, you better not afford yourselves any luxuries on my dime, because I don't tolerate this kind of venomous hypocrisy.

Assistance is given in gross, as much or as less as necessary, to provide someone the ability to financially support themselves, enough at least to ensure a decent quality of life is attained.

It's not just a couple bucks for a bottle dirty water and a piece of bread to survive. It's meant to sustain a certain quality of life, for any amount of time, because that's what we do here in America and in other countries.

So if any you venom-spewing mouth flappers get government assistance, you better hide your damn TVs, internet and whatever else you have for "luxuries".

You better believe that if that happens I will take a THOUSAND drug tests because I don't do drugs, AND THE ONE THAT PAYS THE DANG BILLS MAKES THE RULES! You wouldn't catch me giving over authority of MY house to my baby boy. I pay the bils. MY HOUSE MY RULES

I think this topic is going astray, the real target here will not be the casual or medical necessity pot smoker, the bottom line will be to cut off the meth heads and heroin users.

It is a sad truth that many children go without because their parents are addicted and spend their money for drugs. Hell they can even trade their foodstamp allocation for drugs.

Although it is a noble cause, it is not going to fly because there are too many other factors involved that will complicate this idea.

Oh you may see one or two states trying it as they will do it to try and save a few bucks, but in the end it will become more costly to keep the program ongoing.

reply to post by smyleegrl


Mahatma Gandhi once said "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." This is profound wisdom, because it understands the true depth of compassion. Compassion isn't shallow like foreign aid or donation to a beggar. The change must always begin with you, and from you it will gradually extend to your friends and neighbours, and from them to the village, from them to the district, and eventually to the whole nation. But only if you're willing to invest into yourself.

You are not what you think, possess, or do as your job. You are not your wealth nor your relative social status, but the actions you make according to your inner moral compass. Honor this instinctive drive and it guarantees you a satisfying life in long term.

reply to post by trueperspective


Yeah, and in this current house, America, we give quality of life assistance to those who need it. Regardless on how "lesser" people perceive them as.

So if you don't like the rules of this house, move the hell out and stop being a child.

Reply to post by paradiselost333

I agree if you are on assistance and can buy drugs you DONT need help!!!


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

It's not just a couple bucks for a bottle dirty water and a piece of bread to survive. It's meant to sustain a certain quality of life, for any amount of time, because that's what we do here in America and in other countries.

Trueperspective, I think you have it wrong, it is not meant to sustain a certain quality of life, it is to keep those on the system roles in sub poverty and nothing more.