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.

 

Pass legislation to mandate drug testing for welfare recipients

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
mistaken comment to wrong poster

edit on 21-6-2011 by Bachrk because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bachrk
 









posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bachrk
 


I am sorry,I had quoted you for someone else....Apology's. I will remove post..........



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slawth
So which drugs would fall into the testing process?

When someone does not pass said test, what then?


If you're actually going to enforce it... then considering the fact that cigarettes has resulted in more healthcare costs over the years than illegal drugs and alcohol combined... test for ALL OF THEM. Nothing would please me more than to bankrupt all the corrupt elements within our government after we ALL boycotted illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco... in a team effort. Talk about the ultimate in sweet revenge.

Now par-done me a$$ whilst I go roll me a TORPEDO.
edit on 21-6-2011 by shushu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Bachrk
 


I am sorry,I had quoted you for someone else....Apology's. I will remove post..........


No problem



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I'd rather spend the money to drug test congress and wall street


Now there's an idea that deserves looking into. Those will be the guys who will scream the loudest.
edit on 21-6-2011 by shushu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


This is repugnant. Forced sterilization? I think you have some personal problems you need to take care of if you're wanting to control what goes on inside of someone's body through force by the state.

Agreed


The control-freaks of this world will always find something to put down their less fortunate co-citizens. These sad 'humans' go through their bitter, sour-faced lives, just looking for some reason to jump all over the poor and needy.

For the longest time I used to imagine the USA would be a fabulous country to live in - but in the last few years I have come to change my mind, and I think myself lucky I do not live there, especially so after reading the OP.

The OP also posted complaining about women 'choosing irresponsible men' to father their children - how can a woman know her man is irresponsible until AFTER he has abandoned her?

Maybe the next criteria for benefits applicants will be that recipients MUST BE PSYCHIC.

Control-freaks never make any real sense and they never will - and they are almost always single (I wonder why)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll


For the longest time I used to imagine the USA would be a fabulous country to live in - but in the last few years I have come to change my mind, and I think myself lucky I do not live there, especially so after reading the OP.


I made up my mind a looooong time ago that I would never go to the U.S. The arrogance, the irrational love of guns, the archaic, dark ages mentality of the death penalty and people like the OP are just some few examples of why.

And please Americans, spare me the "we don't want you here anyway" punchline that gets thrown out frequently....it's pathetic.
edit on 21/6/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Reply to sonny1: "temporarily steralize welfare recipiants"? Let's just make f$€king illegal for poor people! Let's then mandate by law that rich people have to f€¥k twice as much. That way the rich could make up the humping frequency reduction in their respected communities. AND it would potentiate the upper social mobility of the extremely horny.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HUMBLEONE
Reply to sonny1: "temporarily steralize welfare recipiants"? Let's just make f$€king illegal for poor people! Let's then mandate by law that rich people have to f€¥k twice as much. That way the rich could make up the humping frequency reduction in their respected communities. AND it would potentiate the upper social mobility of the extremely horny.

Rich people already f--- us over and have been doing since year dot.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Maslo
I would certainly support temporary sterilization for welfare recipients, if there was a safe and cost-effective way to do it. If you cannot take care of yourself, how can you take care of your children? I understand those that believe it could be a slippery slope for other restrictions by the state, but slippery slope arguments are not enough to convince me.



While we are at it,those who are above the age of 50 should be euthanized. Lets keep the population young,and healthy !! Next,lets get rid of those with disability's. You know how much money it takes to take care of them? If they cant take care of themselves,I dont want the taxpayer burden of the "people" doing it . (Insert MEGA sarcasm in this post.)

CHILD "EUTHANASIA" PROGRAM
In the spring and summer months of 1939, a number of planners--led by Philipp Bouhler, the director of Hitler's private chancellery, and Karl Brandt, Hitler's attending physician--began to organize a secret killing operation targeting disabled children. On August 18, 1939, the Reich Ministry of the Interior circulated a decree compelling all physicians, nurses, and midwives to report newborn infants and children under the age of three who showed signs of severe mental or physical disability. Beginning in October 1939, public health authorities began to encourage parents of children with disabilities to admit their young children to one of a number of specially designated pediatric clinics throughout Germany and Austria. The clinics were in reality children's killing wards where specially recruited medical staff murdered their young charges by lethal overdoses of medication or by starvation.

LINK

Yes,sterilize and euthanize!!!!!


Stars to the max for this one! Your sarcasm came though loud and clear!

Yeah! Let's follow in Hitler's steps. He sure knew how to take care of people!
edit on 6/21/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Yeah, let's drug test everybody everytime they step onto public transportation, like buses and trollies and AMTRACK, since those systems are supported with tax payer money!! Snicker.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
How about sterilizing all those Christian/Muslim breeders with 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and more kids? They couldn't possibly pay enough taxes to pay for their children's education, healthcare, etc, and so are being subsidized by taxpayers, yet they waste money on their religious addictions, sending money to charlatans who use it to buy hookers, drugs, buy silence about predatory work environments, child molestion, etc.?

How about drug testing all cops for steroids as well as other illegal drugs? " 'roid rage" is well-documented and costly to municipalities who have to pay for the results.

The OP is disgusting, inhuman, and sociopathic.

When I went to Vietnam I was told the reason I was putting my life on the line was to protect our freedom from exactly this sort of thing.

The OP is an insult to all veterans who fought for freedom and sacrificed life, limb, and spirit for everyone's sake. To say that I hold the thoughts expressed by the OP in contempt is to say that Joplin recently had a windy day.

In my opinion, since clearly the poster has no concepton of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and fails to respect the premises upon which the nation was founded, she should be stripped of her citizenship and kicked out of the country, her kids can stay as wards of the state.
edit on 21-6-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Yay, lets test all welfare recipients, does that include those guys on Wall Street, who received trillions in Tax payers money, is that not welfare? Those guys on Wall Street are more than a little partial to drugs you know. Just coz they wear smart suits and drive nice cars dont mean they havn't been using Tax payers money to fund their drug fueled nights out that probably effect their over confidence and greed.

Or do we just want to test poor people on welfare not the rich ones? Because that sounds like discrimination to me.


*applause* Thank you for stating an obvious truth. I think all judges ,senators, and who ever else is serving the public should be tested as well



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by PhantomLimb
 


I agree, we shouldn't force wellfair folks to do anything. But we could offer them financial support and food stamps if they willingly took drug tests, temporary birth control like norplant etc.

We shouldn't force ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING, but they don't get a dime if they don"t VOLUNTIER to stop doing drugs and getting pregnant.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
I would rather do away with welfare altogether.

Drug testing people would just make it more expensive, when it is the cause of most of our problems, the welfare mindset that is.

When we stop rewarding failure, success may be more plentiful.


Yup. That is the propaganda for You. I can assure You most People want OFF assistance. They don't feel "rewarded" with just enough to get by on. They want to do better. But when the luck is down - and I do mean LUCK - success eludes. And success is FAR more about luck than any effort.

Again I will mention Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers, for a good picture of just HOW MUCH luck is involved in success.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
This should not be allowed. It is not fair. Its like saying, every member on ATS should have their history checked by the government.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warpthal
This should not be allowed. It is not fair. Its like saying, every member on ATS should have their history checked by the government.


All I can say is knock yourselves out, fellas. My tit got shoved into a wringer 42 years ago. Nothing to hide here.
edit on 21-6-2011 by shushu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
You do realize that all the things you're talking about would cost more money in the long run than actually just letting it go? It's not the people on welfare using drugs that is really the problem, it's them dealing drugs. At least, that's what I've seen.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Florida is not the first state to attempt to force welfare recipients to submit to regular drug testing in order to receive welfare benefits. In fact, the ACLU sued the state of Michigan in 2003, winning a restraining order to stop the testing under grounds that it violates the fourth amendment. The ACLU's victory affirms that being poor is not a crime. Since a precedent has been set, there is little doubt that this will be thrown out. If it isn't, it's very bad news for all of us.

Let me explain.

Before the ACLU was able to get it thrown out, the Michigan government managed to drug test welfare recipients for about five weeks. "In the five weeks that the program was in effect, the drug tests were positive in only eight percent of the cases, a percentage that is consistent with drug use in the general population. Of 268 people tested, only 21 tested positive for drugs and all but three were for marijuana." Cannabis is about the only thing they detect on those drug tests with any regularity, and cannabis is less harmful than water.

www.youtube.com...

A Congressional committee found that drug-testing government employees would cost $77,000 for each positive drug test in 1992 dollars. The average welfare recipient receives about $400 per month. So, who really benefits? Companies who specialize in drug testing.

This is about liberty. It is about the balance of power between the individual and his or her government. It is as much about my rights and your rights as it is about some pothead buying Doritos on food stamps. It is not just about welfare recipients, and you never know when you might be in need of some type of public assistance.

"Indeed, this sentiment is echoed by U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts when she ruled that [Michigan's] rationale for testing welfare recipients, 'could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.' The ACLU adds, 'Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.'"

What about if they require you to complete a drug test in order to renew your driver's license down at the DMV? Or, what about allowing police officers to draw blood from any person they deem appropriate? If we keep allowing the intrusions, they will never stop trying to go a little further. We should never allow the government to drug test individuals without probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment protects our person and our property (be it our home, our car, or our boat--anything that is ours) from unreasonable search or seizure. Accepting aid from the government is not grounds for seizing bodily fluids, nor is it grounds to invade any part of a person’s property because it is not an indication that a crime may be in progress. Accepting aid from the government is not probable cause either.

The Fifth Amendment protects our right to be silent. It protects us from incriminating ourselves. That is, we are not required to bear witness against ourselves. If the government forces a citizen to submit to a drug test, it becomes such an example of bearing witness against oneself to the government--a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving people of life, liberty, and property without due process. It contains an equal protection clause that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within it’s jurisdiction. If the state of Florida forces welfare recipients to take drug tests, but does not force those people who receive food stamps, financial aid, or those parents who have children that attend public schools to comply as well, they will be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is impossible to force people to be who you want them to be. Forcing them to pee or yanking out their hair will only result in an increase in criminal acts as these people are pushed to even more desperate lows. From here, we must decide if we want to spare the minor expense of giving these people access to their basic needs, or if we want to send them to prison after they have robbed or killed you or someone you love.

Furthermore, there is a substantial risk for false-positives. According to research, as many as five to six percent of all positive results are indeed false-positives. This almost guarantees that a substantial portion of welfare recipients will have their benefits taken away needlessly. In fact, here's a laundry list of products that will induce a false-positive on your next drug test, so make sure to avoid all of these:

www.askdocweb.com...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join