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: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


You do understand, youi could drug test them, but they will continue to use their illicit drug of choice? And pass every drug screen test 100%. This would not accomplish anything but one. It will give drug testing clinics a boost in profit. The poor will still recieve benefits, and still enjoy their blunts.

You all need to get off blaming all of societies ills on drug use. It accounts for some ill, but greed takes the cake. Lets test for greed, then sterilize all who test positive.




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

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I get what you're saying, but that doesn't excuse people from breeding recklessly knowing their financial circumstances are less than stable. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
If we are to confront the corruption in our nation we must be able to strengthen ourselves as much as possible. We cannot have too many attachments in these times. If they cannot afford their own children what makes you think anyone else can?
Pragmatism must be implemented by the people if they truly intend to counter-act the destructive forces that are running this and many nations into the ground.


Does being poor strip Us of Our Human dignity and rights? That We should be punished by the state for being poor? It's NOT the people on Welfare and other assistance. It's the MILITARY spending that is killing Us. If We took the budget of the military and spent it here at home, We could feed, clothe and house EVERYONE richly and money left over.

Rather than look at Our poor as if They are no longer Human (and therefore do not deserve the rights of those who are not), Let's get rid of the military spending. We could balance the budget post-haste if We did that.


Please understand this:

The Legislation is NOT punishing you for being poor. It punished those caught being on drugs while pretending to be poor. What are you not getting about this?


1. I thought the issue was People BUYING drugs with the money They get...not just "being on drugs."
2. The pariah plant is hardly so disruptive One cannot work - I know LOTS of doctors, lawyers, chefs, bankers, service station attendants, civil servants, supermarket managers, architects, dishwashers, etc. who work "under the influence." If One used the pariah plant because a friend offered it, or because the One needed it medicinally in a state where that is not yet legal (and I assure You it is a cornucopia of medicinal applications, from stress to cancer treatment) - for this...what? Let 'em freeze to death out in the cold? Die of starvation? What?
3. The legislation is EXACTLY punishing people because They're poor. Unless We are to test EVERYONE, sterilize EVERYONE, it boils down to punishing some for being poor and asking for help.


Did you feel that you were being punished when your job drug-tested you?


I have never been drug tested for a job. But that is beside the point. There is a BIG difference between what a PRIVATE-SECTOR EMPLOYER may require to obtain a job and the government telling all who ask for help that They will get no help unless privacy is breached and They are sterilized (how hideously Naziesque!).

Stop making it seem as if these are the same thing. They ARE NOT.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


On the other hand, why don't we just pass legislation to drug test and sterilize those who advocate doing it to others? Ever hear the old saying; "The guilty dog usually barks first?" Drug testing is an invasion of privacy no matter who it's performed on.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I think we should be drug testing all government workers..

Especially congress and ESPECIALLY the president....

Whats good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander.....

The way things are going around here SOMEONE is on some SERIOUS drugs.....
edit on 21-6-2011 by Zaanny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
You want to know where (statistically speaking) all Our money goes? What a perfectly timed thread:

12 Facts About Military Spending That Will Make Your Head Explode

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You want to solve the problem of money? Stop military spending.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaanny
I think we should be drug testing all government workers..

Especially congress and ESPECIALLY the president....

Whats good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander.....

The way things are going around here SOMEONE is on some SERIOUS drugs.....
edit on 21-6-2011 by Zaanny because: (no reason given)


Good luck enacting legislation like that. That's the best way to end the war on drugs immediately, IMO.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


On the other hand, why don't we just pass legislation to drug test and sterilize those who advocate doing it to others? Ever hear the old saying; "The guilty dog usually barks first?" Drug testing is an invasion of privacy no matter who it's performed on.


LOL... the guilty dog always barks first? Yannow... before I got pulled down into the pits of hell by a rapist... drugs and alcohol was never an issue with me. So if someone had asked me in 1969 when I was 16 if I would have preferred to have been screened for drugs once a month... or had some task force run a periscope up my a$$ 24/7 to collect information for the rest of my life. I would have chosen the monthly drug testing in a heartbeat. Unfortunately I wasn't offered that option. In the mean time I'm still dealing with a$$holes who made a career out of destroying people's lives for political purposes under the guise of drug czar... homeland security... WTF ever. Hey! if it was good enough for me and thousands of other poor bastards... it should be good enough for the rest of you sorry-a$$ed constitutional saps. I say... Bring it on!!!
edit on 21-6-2011 by shushu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:31 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.



Never said I agreed with the solution.....


I just gave a solution. Hell,this would affect the rich poor,and middle class.Last I heard, EVERY social class does drugs....Not just the poor. This solution could stop EVERYONE who keeps crying drugs are bad from actually having kids. .How many are in jail for drug violations? Let them go free,under MASS amnesty. Another problem solved? LEGALIZE THE DRUGS,Sterilization in the drugs.............LOL Gubment sells the drugs..........CHEEP. No middleman,No drug wars. Now if we could only do this with REGULAR wars...........



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


New York has a one stike and your out drug policy when It comes to public welfare.

But all anybody does it call us the least free state......

I guess you can't make your cake and eat it too



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I just watched a local news segment about this topic...there was even one young man doing an interview outside the welfare office telling the journalists that, 'Yes, I love my weed. But what does that have to do with my welfare check? Its not like I'm going to buy my weed with the welfare check!"

WTF

Folks, this is insane and this is what our gov't is currently supporting.....

As for the temporary mandatory sterilization:

I am in support of TEMPORARY sterilization while recievning assistance. While in welfare, aren't times harder for the parent? Aren't they already scuffling, and that was the reason in the 1st place to be apply for welfare?

How fair is that to the unborn children?

Why would a person want to keep populating on this situation?


edit on 22-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
The taxpaying citizens of Florida do not care that their governor is as corrupt as the day is long. All the extra cost to the taxpayer will go straight into Scotty's bank accounts. They cannot see past the end of their noses.

Wait till your taxes increase to accommodate this, while continuing to pay out welfare checks to positive-testing recipients via their granny or whomever.

The governor gets richer thanks to his drug-testing company as the taxpayer shells out more money.

Haha what a bunch of mugs Floridians are.

Can't wait until you all come on here moaning when it all inevitably goes tits up.
edit on 22-6-2011 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

I am in support of TEMPORARY sterilization while recievning assistance.


Cool, I am in favour of permanent sterilization or imprisonment of those who promote and actively support temporary sterilization. They cannot be allowed to breed and must be monitored as a threat to national security.

It has to do with keeping people safe and protecting their welfare.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:00 AM
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!!!!!


Reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy. Or slippery slope logical fallacy. You assume that if I support reversible sterilisation of welfare recipients (assuming there will be a safe and cost effective way to do it, NOT with current medical technology - it was only a theoretical discussion), that I must support involuntary euthanasia, or god knows what else. I assure you that this is not true.


edit on 22/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
You assume that if I support reversible sterilisation of welfare recipients (assuming there will be a safe and cost effective way to do it, NOT with current medical technology - it was only a theoretical discussion), that I must support involuntary euthanasia, or god knows what else. I assure you that this is not true.


It is hard for people to believe you.

You take the side that a troll would take if he was out for maximum trollage adopt his positions, then you expect people to trust your assurances.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Well, if you consider a right to unlimited procreation an inalienable basic right, I can understand it.

I dont consider it as such, simply because when done irresponsibly, it harms other, third persons (either the taxpayers, assuming there is child welfare, or the children, if there is no child welfare). And its not a basic thing required for life (thus food or healthcare can be considered a basic right, even if it too harms others when its payed from taxes (taxes are theft), because contrary to having a lot of children, its a basic need, not a luxury).



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Yes, this is the real problem with our economy..poor people buying/using drugs..not the ridiculous military spending and corporations raping the people's pockets.. lol ignorance at its finest



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Well, if you consider a right to unlimited procreation an inalienable basic right, I can understand it.


You would also be more believable if you responded to the actual content of the posts you reply to.

There is no reason to pretend someone meant to say something they didn't and then reply to that - not when you have actual content to reply to.

It is not against the T & C to do what you are doing, but it does set a bad example for the newer members, who may come to think that this behaviour is normal.

We cannot discuss sterilization when you are responding to statements that were never made.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
For a website that is constantly in fear of government intervention, I sure am seeing a lot of pro government rhetoric going on in this thread (and I am not talking about the supporters of drug testing). When you go on welfare, YOU ARE LETTING the government interfere and intrude in your life. If you depend on them for your needs, they have every right to know if you deserve it. Everybody I know who is on welfare is either on drugs, an alcoholic, or simply is just too lazy to find a job. I have no doubt that there are legitimate cases, but the fact is that they are a minority. Anybody who receives government aid, including CEO's, bankers, and poor junkies alike should all be drug tested. I am also aware that if I was to go on welfare, I would be advocating this drug testing for me as well. No problem because I am not on drugs. Also, I have advocated this plan for many many years now, not just when times are rough. I have seen my tax dollars abused by junkies enough.

PS: If any of you here are on welfare, shame on you for trusting the government!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


There was nothing to respond to, it was just a rant. Besides, I agree that people advocating limiting of basic human rights should be at least monitored, if not imprisoned. But beware, even anarchists and libertarians fall into this category according to current UN definition of basic human rights, and rights of the child. Would you want to imprison or sterilise our local anarchists and libertarians also?
Thus I only dispute that current UN definition of basic human rights is completely correct.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   


I just watched a local news segment about this topic...there was even one young man doing an interview outside the welfare office telling the journalists that, 'Yes, I love my weed. But what does that have to do with my welfare check? Its not like I'm going to buy my weed with the welfare check!"
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Ever thought this guy might grow his own weed, it grows in the ground like er a "weed". Why are you so obsessed with having your fellow citizens tested and punished? Why do you only advocate drug testing for social but not corporate welfare recipients? Why are you so keen to see a private company make money on the backs of the poorest in your society?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join