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.

 

La Bruzzo wants to drug test welfare recepients...

page: 7
44
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
This would work if addiction wasn't considered a 'disability'.

The end result of this drug testing will be the people having to pay more - because now the poor folks aren't on welfare, they are on disability.

That is why they don't drug test in Canada, methinks.




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


I wish this would become common place. If you want to receive public money to assist, I dont think there is anything wrong with setting up standards for that. I am subject to random drug testing for my job, and thats just to remain employed with the department.

I dont understand why their is an aversion to this program by some. If you dont want to take the drug test, thats your choice, but dont expect assistance.

Worst case scenario, change the manner in which the assistance is distributed. Instead of sending out checks / debit cards, register the bills with the assistance agency where they can pay it directly. Obviously follow up would be needed to ensure fraud is not occuring.
edit on 18-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


The drug users that will get caught out the most are cannibis users because of the length of time it stays in the system.
Therefore:

Im in 2 frames of mind on this:
1: The Drug users are recieving tax payer money, so tax payer's should have the right to security that it is not being used for drugs - but whose to say pot smokers didnt grow it themselves - or simply get it from a 3rd party as a gift.
2: Should the tax payers have to pay the high cost to test all welfare users on an a weekly basis to catch out users of drugs. (would need to be almost more than weekly to be accurate for opiates)

- edit to add: Agree with previous poster pointing out addiction is a "disability" aslo - which could result in tax payers paying huge amounts for disabilities. I personally know meth addicts that recieve more welfare than those unemployed and do not need to even actively look for work because of the stress it would place on the individual with a "disability"
edit on 18-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


And don't forget disability.

The dopers might end up getting even more money if they have a paper trail that prove they are addicted ('disabled').



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
There is absolutely nothing discriminatory about this proposal. Welfare is a privilege, not a right, and the state can have various prerequisites to be met before you can live on other peoples money, including drug testing, to ensure there is no money wasted. If you dont want to be tested, dont apply for welfare, it is that simple.

That said, I am not sure this would even be cost-effective, and increased bureaucracy is not something I support, so I am on the fence on this one.
edit on 18/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Starred both your posts for you bud - very good point!



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


For 50c p/sq f you have the job.....

when can you start?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


The drug users that will get caught out the most are cannibis users because of the length of time it stays in the system.
Therefore:

Im in 2 frames of mind on this:
1: The Drug users are recieving tax payer money, so tax payer's should have the right to security that it is not being used for drugs - but whose to say pot smokers didnt grow it themselves - or simply get it from a 3rd party as a gift.
2: Should the tax payers have to pay the high cost to test all welfare users on an a weekly basis to catch out users of drugs. (would need to be almost more than weekly to be accurate for opiates)
edit on 18-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)


Actually it isn't that hard to do the tests, it's just putting a test strip into the piddle and they could use other welfare recipients to work the tests, they could read it because the test srip will tell you right on the chart what color means what drug, a trained monkey could do it!!!
I do agree about the cannibus. That I think should be not even considered and should be legalized IMO. It's all the crap hard drugs that are chemically processed that one they cost the most damage to your system, they are the ones that gangs kill over (putting innocence in harms way), and they are the most expensive as well(so would really be ballsy to be buying on our tax handouts), but another poster has proven you can find those with pee tests even up to I think 15 days they said after use I am not totally sure if that is what it said and there was a link, the post is on pg 2 I think.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Originally posted by byteshertz
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


The drug users that will get caught out the most are cannibis users because of the length of time it stays in the system.
Therefore:

Im in 2 frames of mind on this:
1: The Drug users are recieving tax payer money, so tax payer's should have the right to security that it is not being used for drugs - but whose to say pot smokers didnt grow it themselves - or simply get it from a 3rd party as a gift.
2: Should the tax payers have to pay the high cost to test all welfare users on an a weekly basis to catch out users of drugs. (would need to be almost more than weekly to be accurate for opiates)
edit on 18-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)


Actually it isn't that hard to do the tests, it's just putting a test strip into the piddle and they could use other welfare recipients to work the tests, they could read it because the test srip will tell you right on the chart what color means what drug, a trained monkey could do it!!!
I do agree about the cannibus. That I think should be not even considered and should be legalized IMO. It's all the crap hard drugs that are chemically processed that one they cost the most damage to your system, they are the ones that gangs kill over (putting innocence in harms way), and they are the most expensive as well(so would really be ballsy to be buying on our tax handouts), but another poster has proven you can find those with pee tests even up to I think 15 days they said after use I am not totally sure if that is what it said and there was a link, the post is on pg 2 I think.


I also think it could lead to people ordering 'test clears' so they pass the test - wasting more tax payer money... I think the more we try to fight drug abuse the more it costs because people who are addicted will do whatever it takes to keep it coming - and money is just a number when you are addicted.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


For 50c p/sq f you have the job.....

when can you start?

Tomorrow!
See not so bad for sq footage,eh? But you do have a point those who aren't familiar with what that charge per square ft is would probably not think it a good deal.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Mmmm... drug testing welfare recipients?

Does that include all the bankers and high flying brokers that benefitted from the taxpayer bailouts too?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Mmmm... drug testing welfare recipients?

Does that include all the bankers and high flying brokers that benefitted from the taxpayer bailouts too?


Ba Dunch!



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


My mistake...had to backtrack and found I clicked on to the wrong country. Gawd, and I know the pop of the USA....

The statistics of unemployment in the USA as of Feb 2011 is 9%



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


You do have a point. It's tough, because it is an issue with a lot of welfare recipients. As well as others too, personally I think they could legalize it all then tax the balls out of it and then we'd fix at least 80% of the deficit, and about 90% of crime and also they would see whom is buying it and with what monies (FDA) so they could easily see if recipients are purchasing drugs and maybe just maybe treat them? I don't know. If they treat them, give them job training and childcare, more of them wouldn't be stuck, and the money grubber ones would be weeded out and then could be stipend(you know the ones who don't wanna work). All this could be paid for by the extra taxes from the drugs coming in to the government. Of course the job training is supposed to have been in effect, but that is a royal joke!



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Thank god lol

I didn't think that what's you meant to say.

Yeah, that's a HIGH unemployment for one of the richest countries in the world, I don't care what the "experts" say about it.

You know as much as Keith Olbermann was one sided, you can still ask: " Where are the jobs Mr. Boehner?"

~Keeper
edit on 3/18/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Yeah, that was a REALLY dumb mistake I made LOL



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Drug tests for everyone! Do you not get it? I'm not talking about being selective. Equality across the board.
Why is this concept so hard to grasp? And test for ALL illegal drugs? There are plenty of elderly who are addicts. Why would you let one group slide? You don't believe in equality, do you?
edit on 18-3-2011 by thorazineshuffle because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by thorazineshuffle
 


It's obvious to me only one or two on this thread have any respect towards the elderly or senior citizens on welfare....

Do you know what Downs Syndrome is? Autism? How about wheelchair confined recepients? Urine tests for them too?

there is definately a serious gap between my generation and yours; if some smart @rse your age sitting on your @rses wanting my urine sample for a bit of welfare I'd tell you to get stuffed and if that meant I'd get no help from Govt I'd follow you and your staff around until I got enough goodies on you and see to it you all got sacked, one by one.

See, my generation can play your tricks too except we are just better at it.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Darn right! I would also disallow ANY recipients of food stamps in MY COUNTRY from smoking anything including tobacco. If they've got money to waste on that, they've got money for food, I should not have to pay for it!
They need to test for tobacco, alcohol, all of it, as long as they're not going to draw blood to do it.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by thorazineshuffle
 


No, I don't believe in this equality because it's obvious on this thread we are not all equal




top topics



 
44
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join