It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


La Bruzzo wants to drug test welfare recepients...

page: 28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Sagittarian69
Taking a drug test does not in anyway imply that you are guilty of anything. It, simply, is a way, even in a broken system, to try to weed out those that are taking advantage of our tax dollars. I drug test employees for a living, am I discriminating because our rule is; in order to work for us you have to be drug free? As far as I know taking a hair sample is not invasive. As, invasive means IN, such as blood work. Private businesses have the right to test for drug use why doesn't the government? Oh wait, PC...

Too many people use government assistance as a "career" choice. I do not feel sorry for them. If any of us find ourselves legitimately in need of government assistance then we should be able to abide by their rules. Do not be offended by drug testing, it is not an accusation... simply a precaution. The best way for me to put it is.

I Do not know you. I am not you. Therefore you must prove yourself if you want something from me.

Would you submit to a random drug test walking down the street?

It absolutely does imply that you are guilty of something. If not, maybe we should just install a rectum cam in you to make sure you aren't having deviant sex, You know how we all feel about pedophiles. Better safe than sorry.

If the government met their responsibility, there would be no welfare class. Most people on welfare would much rather work than grovel to the government and the likes of you.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by HaveAnotherOne

reply to post by StigShen

No proof you own it.

Passing off another persons work as your own is considered plagiarism.

Prove you actually wrote it, and I will gladly read it.

As you have shown so far, you know very little about the Constitution, and frankly I am surprised you even know how to spell it.

Please, please, PLEASE!

Take this personal feud off-line, will you?

It is very tedious to have to filter out these back-and-forth attacks on each other. Plus you guys are ruining a good thread.

Take it outside, get a room, or whatever, but take it out of here, PLEASE!!! And I direct that at both sides of this Hatfield-McCoy feud.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by mishigas

Lol, dont direct it at me. I was the one being trolled. If he doesn't like my info, he doesn't have to read it. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by StigShen

Sir I apologize for the nature of the post you have been subject to..

If I may can you condense into one post most of what you believe into one post minus what you dealt with the troll on...

It seems we disagree and I would like to hear your view... you mention several times working with ss benefits receivers...

Your view if I can condense it it seems is that it is a violation of a persons freedom...

The intelligent responses have covered the idea that it is like a job... I tend to side more with the interpretation then yours and would appreciate it if would expand your view

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by zerotime

The taxpayer would pay for the drug test. I am sure that some committee would convene and figure cost of drug testing vs non testing. It would boil down to a numbers game. What saves the most money. One would think, albeit with no evidence, that it would cost taxpayers less to drug test than to not. However, I cannot say either way.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by StigShen

If the street you are walking down is regulated by an agency or private business then they have the right to require the test. Otherwise your question is plainly silly.

I do agree that many people do not want to ask the government for anything. What is wrong with making sure that those who are manipulating the system do not take away funds that will help those in need?
One more note, the government shouldn't have to take care of deadbeats. What obligations include those that would take advantage of the current systems? And grovel to the likes of me? Really?

edit on 18-3-2011 by Sagittarian69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:24 AM
reply to post by ripcontrol

I thank you good sir for your willingness to intelligently discuss this topic.

There are a multitude of reasons for which I disagree with drug testing for welfare recipients.

Ineffectiveness. You cannot test for alcohol, because it is legal, despite the fact that it causes more trouble than all other drug combined. More to the point, alcohol, and most other drugs are out of the system in 12-72 hours. So really, they are just going after the pot-heads. (And pot heads already know how to pass a drug test anyway.)

Ineffectiveness in enforcement. Even uf someone tests positive, you cannot cut off their benefit. All you can do is enroll them in a mandatory rehab program.

Ineffectiveness in treatment. You can't make someone want to quit. So all you are doing here is paying for classes that someone has to show up at. They will become more resentful of the system, government intrusion, and slip deeper into addiction. Of course, we could institutionalize addicts, but if we had the money to do that, why didn't we keep the mental institutes open? There are many, many people today who commit crimes simply because they cannot function in society by mental defect, who were once slated to be a ward of the state, where they got required meds as outpatients, or were confined as inpatients. That all went away in the 80's and early 90's. Now we roll psychiatric patients right in with common criminals.

Constitutionality. Unless you have evidence that I am a criminal, you have no right to test me, search me, touch me, etc.

I could go on, but I must admit, I have a few drinks in me and am distracted. And for the record, yes, I collect foodstamps, AND, I am intoxicated.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by Sagittarian69

The most aggressive stats show that 30% of welfare recipients are struggling with addiction. It is probably less than that, but even if it is at 30%, it is clearly INEFFECTIVE as a cost. 30% return is a waste. Not to mention the fact that those 30% will not be kicked off of welfare. They will be enrolled in another program you have to pay for.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Sagittarian69
reply to post by StigShen

If the street you are walking down is regulated by an agency or private business then they have the right to require the test. Otherwise your question is plainly silly.

I do agree that many people do not want to ask the government for anything. What is wrong with making sure that those who are manipulating the system do not take away funds that will help those in need?
One more note, the government shouldn't have to take care of deadbeats. What obligations include those that would take advantage of the current systems? And grovel to the likes of me? Really?

edit on 18-3-2011 by Sagittarian69 because: (no reason given)

Stop putting the cart in front of the horse.

Are there people who abuse the system? Sure.

Does that mean because there are tax cheats that you should be audited without cause. Does that mean because there are drug dealers, you should have your house searched without a warrant?

Does that mean that every student who gets a loan or a grant should be drug tested?

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:36 AM
reply to post by ripcontrol

I really have to give kudos once again to a poster of integrity, who can debate properly. While I disagree with your position overall, I respect you for your stand, and do see where you are coming from.

Abuses of the system really tic me off.

But at the end of the day, I am more concerned about bigger things than how many noodle packets poor people get.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:37 AM
It will not work - I get disgusted all of the time . I ended up leaving ( my husband) with three small children and later becoming disabled . I received no help from my husband OR the tax payers , yet I know at least a dozen 20ish that drink and get high all night , sleep all day. The ALL get food stamps and when they need to pass a drug screen for probation - they "borrow" urine and keep it in a baggy in their pants . I think it just comes down to teaching our children about self respect and not enabling them to be this type of person. My daughter knew a girl years back that was sixteen and pregnant , she was whining about not having the money to get her hair done when her mother spoke up and said ' Don't worry Britany , when you get seven months pregnant you'll qualify for welfare' . I just about passed out.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:53 AM
well i disagree with people spending money they are given to survive by the state on drugs. but i think people will always find a way around it. if the test is done at home you could use somebody elses sample, if it is done in a clinic then you can take in somebody elses sample and pour it into the empty vial you were just given.

are they strip searched and then watched to make sure it is their urine going into the vial? what about people who cannot go? sometimes you freeze up, do they get their money stopped or do they have to spend valuble job serching time waiting around. i suppose if it was onces every 2-3 months it would not be an issue, but how do you get around people not smuggling in other peoples samples to pass of as their own without intruding on their privacy or rights?

edit on 19-3-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:55 AM
Damned straight!, some friends and I have talked about this before, and we wondered howcome welfare recipients do not get drug tests, when we all have to take a drug test for most jobs when we apply. We have to be clean to make the money, they should be drug free to receive our forced donation.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:13 AM
reply to post by StigShen

Overall our first agreement is that we disagree over the general idea it seems..

So I to am curious over which details... because it seems upon further discussion that we both are in doubt over the details


I will start the definition as -
a)enforcing testing
b)enforcing treatment

It could be done cheaply, very cheaply... most of the ones who receive benefits already also have doctors and doctors vists... A note from the doctor over passing a piss test good for me... and most already run tox screens at least most I have heard of... so yeah.. it is already done... just send them for that check up... ( we already pay for it I believe) and they receive temporary till test comes back

Note: the suggestion is mine as to how it might work - why I wrote the letter

The civil rights aspect... I myself have the issue Hippa....

please reference part of my letter to the senator on this... Is it just a yes or no... or do they get invasive.. (CPS, cops, public record, ect)

It has to also be balanced with the fact that it is someone else's money... most jobs do drug test now days pre-employment screening...

If it stays with the doc with a denial letter, then yes....

if it becomes part of the system permanently... no.. then I am with you ( my own pig-headedness)

You also mentioned a good point, no definition of treatment has been given... just treatment.. a gold-platted emotionally packed word... back in the day most horse where treated with bullets for a broken leg so I want to know exactly how they define treatment....

At this point I have to mention this because it has to be added....

I forgot to adds this but hopefully it (the information) will be in the bill ...

How are illegal immigrants to be treated?

It is part of the subject because criminals have limited rights and actions in connection with benefits... or are the immigrants considered just people till tried and found one way or another...from the sounds of it the employees are not allowed to report personal information...

Ill have to wait till I can read his full proposal when and if it is sent to me....

We have to remember on the last part, it is speculation and wonder as to if it is mentioned in the bill....

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by Michelle129th

Yes self worth is very important to me. If I dont set my own standards higher than why in the world would a potential employer? And my work is a hurdred precent ima type that dose the job thru i dont half arse it its not in my constitution. and for that resone i demand more money and wont setle for less because im worth evry cent of a higher wage
now let me get back on topic drug testing is wrong and the police seem to do fine enough job aresting and jailing drug users why bring welfare into that picture?

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:33 AM

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

If they want tax payer money, it should be a fair deal that they aren't using that money to buy drugs.

They, huh? Who's "they"?

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Hawking
reply to post by ripcontrol

Excellent, we should also stop anyone from using food stamps for twinkies and mountain dew. I think everyone has the innate right to sugar, fat and drugs, but you better not be buying any of them with my tax dollars...

Agreed !! It makes me SICK to grocery shop on payday. My cart is only 1/4 to 1/2 full and has staple ingredients. Milk, Ramen, eggs, potatoes, cheese, cheap bread,lunch meat, etc.
The food stamp recipients have close to a full cart of pop tarts, frozen pizzas, chips, cases of soda, and the like.

I think drug testing is a great idea, too bad it will never happen. I also whole-heartedly agree that assistance in any form should never be extended for more than 2 children......what I mean is, I'd like to see a limitation put on people already collecting aide. There are so many new families coming through the lines of government assistance programs, many who have never, until that moment, received help.

edit on 19-3-2011 by dragynfly because: Did not include the reply

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by Majestic Lumen

You are drug tested when applying for a job - and subsequently during employment, most often if an injury occurs, due to insurance and legal liability issues. And that's the only reason. Companies don't want the employee hurting themselves, or others, due to controllable factors - as allowing that to happen would effectively be considered negligence and failure to provide a safe work environment.

***In general and not directed to the above member specifically***

This entire issue, to me, falls to rights. And it still leaves my jaw agape that so many are so eager to deprive others of rights that they would simply never ever want themselves to be robbed of.

Sure, there are people who abuse the system. And there are people who do not. Are we comfortable with forcing innocent people to be punished for the sins of others? That's a very slippery slope and one that is likely to bite this nation in the pants.

First they came for the poor and I said nothing because I felt disdain for the poor...

But, hey, open this door folks, willingly and with open arms, and lose your voice to protest when the next diminishing of freedom occurs.


posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:10 AM

Originally posted by thorazineshuffle
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Don't start this discrimination bs. We should be selective with who we help. We have drug tests in the workforce.
If you fail it, no job, no money. Why should anyone be treated differently?

I couldn't have said it better myself !!!!
It's not discrimination targeting the poor. As a job seeker, I AM the poor, and yet in order to work I must pass a drug test. Why is submitting to a drug test for government aide so different ?

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:16 AM
reply to post by ripcontrol

It doesn't matter a hill of beans whether or not they have medical. A drug test still costs. $25-45 dollars. And that is nowhere near the cost to process those results through the welfare system. Not just the whole line of paperwork red tape, but also the appeals process. Anyone who is denied welfare, is entitled to an appeal.

So your notion that it could be done "cheaply" goes right out the window. In actual tests, and then man-hours to process the results of those tests through the state, you are talking a MINIMUM of $1,000 before appeal. Every month, for one in seven Americans.

As far as civil liberties, ANY test is invasive, and presumptuous of a crime. There is a world of difference between applying for a job that requires a drug test, and having the government test you for something that is your RIGHT. The people have paid for welfare relief. The government has no right to second guess that if you show that your need for relief is legit.

new topics

top topics

<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in