La Bruzzo wants to drug test welfare recepients...

reply to post by ripcontrol


Hell... why stop there. Maybe they should set up random drug test check points on the highway. Like the DUI checkpoints only these you make people get out of their cars and pee in a cup... can't afford a drugged out driver.

Why not make ALL public schools require drug tests. Why waste taxpayer money on worthless drug addict who will end up dead or in prison anyway?

Or better yet... Let's not discriminate against low income families... let just make random drug tests mandatory for ALL U.S. citizens. Why tolerate drug use at all? You could form a special police unit that could go door to door and line everyone up for random drug checks. Billions of our dollars being poured into drug cartels pockets for what?

Get friggin real people

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by macman

 

Cut welfare and you'll have crime and people clogging the streets.

But hey, they can just give you a gun and tell you to "clean house" because I'm sure that you're used to jumping by now.

Why, because those on welfare can't provide for themselves? Or can only turn to crime?
No how is making broad sweeping generalities?

reply to post by The Sword


It has nothing to do with the stated goals. The lobby he supports are corporate interests. It is just another way to shakedown taxpayers. Particularly, the sort of taxpayers who are normally against higher taxes and more government. But to go after those "welfare scum" it seems like a good investment.

New employees that get hired on at the company I work for have to undergo a drug screening. It is a hair test. I believe that if you need assistance, it should be treated like applying for a job. Drug screening should be for 100% of new applicants and for those that are already in the system.

If you have to submit for drug testing to have a job, you should also have to submit to drug testing to get welfare.

reply to post by macman


Hardly.

It's about pointing out the flawed logic of drug-testing people on welfare.

reply to post by wdkirk


Except that most people DON'T have to submit to drug testing because of the COST.

Therefore, your logic doesn't work.Companies will not spend that kind of money if it only helps them catch 1% of their employees on drugs.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by macman

 

Hardly.

It's about pointing out the flawed logic of drug-testing people on welfare.

Um, you still state that those on welfare would turn to crime if left to fend for themselves.
You are full of crap no matter how you spin it.

Originally posted by wdkirk
New employees that get hired on at the company I work for have to undergo a drug screening. It is a hair test. I believe that if you need assistance, it should be treated like applying for a job. Drug screening should be for 100% of new applicants and for those that are already in the system.

If you have to submit for drug testing to have a job, you should also have to submit to drug testing to get welfare.

I don't think that employers should be able to demand that you be drug tested either, unless you are working in a dangerous profession where substance abuse may be a threat to safety. Like say if you were a heavy-equipment operator or something.

But let's try this on for size. Why not take those funds, and instead of testing welfare recipients, we test police, firefighters, and paramedics? After all, their pay also comes out of the taxpayer pocket, and the repercussions if they are on drugs are much more severe.

Lastly, what purpose does drug screening welfare recipients serve? They can't deny benefits because of a positive. All they can do is demand that the recipient go into treatment. And treatment doesn't work unless the person is willing.

Originally posted by macman

Um, you still state that those on welfare would turn to crime if left to fend for themselves.
You are full of crap no matter how you spin it.

Sorry, but I have to interject here. You cut off someone's welfare, and they certainly will turn to crime. I don't care if they are an addict or not. They still need to eat, they still need shelter.

Originally posted by wdkirk
New employees that get hired on at the company I work for have to undergo a drug screening. It is a hair test. I believe that if you need assistance, it should be treated like applying for a job. Drug screening should be for 100% of new applicants and for those that are already in the system.

If you have to submit for drug testing to have a job, you should also have to submit to drug testing to get welfare.

Are you seriously telling me that it's routine in the USA to have to pass a drug test to get a job? That's insane.... Welfare is not a job. Here in NZ it's set at a rate of 30% of the minimum wage. That's also insane!
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


Most companies say they will test, and never do. Unless of course there is some sort of injury or something like that. It's sort of their way to reserve the right, and leave them an opportunity to fire you any time they want if they dig up a little dirt on you.

I have gotten a lot of drug tests, but I have been in more professional lines of work that require licensing and oaths and so forth as well.

Welfare recipients should have been receiving a drug test. I think that if you are receiving money from the government you should be treated like a government worker and tested like one. Give them a random test once a month. If they can't make it to the test then they will no longer receive any government assistance.

reply to post by jmr1982


Government workers are not tested as a matter of standard policy. Though they may be tested for certain specific duties, even the police are not tested regularly or randomly even. Many departments do not even test for an initial hire. I have worked for four different police or para-police agencies and only drug tested once in that line of work.

Secondly, if you had read through the thread, you would have seen that the cost runs into the billions of dollars simply to save a few hundred thousand dollars. And that is ONLY if they actually kicked the people off of welfare, which they cannot do.

Instead, if a recipient tests positive, the state is then obligated to provide treatment as well as all other benefits.

One in six Americans receive some sort of public assistance. This is the march of the police-state and fascism. It has nothing to do with helping anyone or saving tax dollars. This is their way of entering one-sixth of the population into a program which will test your biological material. Do you think they aren't going to be mapping your DNA next? Especially if they go with follicle testing.

This has nothing to do with drugs.

reply to post by RichardA


I was a high school janitor for a while. Not a bad gig really. I enjoyed it. Not mopping up puke or something like that of course. But hey, what job don't you have to deal with crap sometimes. Who cares if it literal.

Hi, well this is new to me, the site appears very interesting.

Drug testing, I am guessing that the money makers/ power brokers are some how seeking greater revenue/ power for themselves, or for their various empires, clubs or gangs which they belong to.

I get the idea a lot of money is made under the guise of protecting public interests, after all, in this instance doing such a thing will, make some people stay away from welfare, which is not a good thing, there is enough money to support the hard done by, for what ever reason. Just chop some of the bull# salaries your officials and company men make. After all its all public money and many of them are naught but bullies and cleaver sales men / women with silver tongues and not much gray matter or with knowledge in a very limited field.

I figure that the flow on affect of such laws, will be to increase your crime rate, thus create income for lawyers, Judges and the general crime empire they run. Much money is made from many so called laws. An increase in crime rate also often justifies greater police, every empire needs to grow or it will die, your crime empires are the same, one cannot build big houses, and own flash items without considerable money. The educational empire also needs such growth, after all they bread the lawyers ask your self who become the Judges and other such officials, largely not the real people. To keep their money makers running they need to constantly introduce new laws and work out new ways to scam the public. Real laws reduce crime and benefit people. Most laws appear to protect the rich and doom / enslave the already poor.

Even dogs learn to salivate, at the bell. For example the instance of drink driving has been considerably reduced over the years we have learn t not to do this of course a good thing, however some just don't care but the masses have learned not to, so new ways to create revenue were required.

Creating such laws will, clearly increase somebodies profit, wither it be the drug companies who sell the test kits, bought with your public money. These often have share holders, ask yourself who owns the shares, I'd like some if such laws are passed, but owning them prior would be the way to go. Has La Bruzzo got vested interests?

I hope it does not work out for La Bruzzo, as clearly he has his own agenda, and heck its a shame that most of the drugs tested are not noticeable soon after use. Most of the pot smokers in our country now use meth, acid or speed as there work tests do not pick this up after several days. However the poor pot smoker is screwed being six or so weeks to be clean. The irony is that one can buy flush kits to screw the test up is not this absurd, and at a guess from the same companies who make the tests to start with.

Clearly we are not using hair samples in our testing, as these can tell all your sins. Who is testing the testers, do all your police, teachers, lawyers and officials get tested at random, I do not think so. One can only laugh.at the whole drug testing thing, I have no problem with saliva tests with some tolerance much like alcohol tests when driving or operating machinery. But do not punish when there is no equality from the outset. Do not make life harder for the ones who are living it.

I am not promoting drug use however I do believe each to their own, as long as they are responsible and after all an idiot will always be an idiot, regardless of what poison they are into, at least until they return to the maker that is.

Apologies if I was a tad of topic, have a good one..

still no word back from La Bruzzo's office I'll give it till tomorrow then I'll rewrite a whole new letter... and resend the old one....

I want to hear the response from the Representative...

I have to say a few things in response here.. As it has been put forward to date I agree with the whole idea in general... what I want are the particulars of the bill...

some points that are very good have been raised since I originally wrote the letter...

among them was the civil right side to this argument ( one of a few points that could derail it in my eyes....)


As for the drug test during random stops... you ready for this... I disagree with it but we are almost there.... It is the civil rights side to it.... where is the line....

The tsa is real close to doing it....