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.


Pass legislation to mandate drug testing for welfare recipients

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:47 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by woodwardjnr

Weed should be legal. That is the problem. Not testing recipients for illegal drugs.

Well, of course that is another debate entirely, Im more interested why the OP is so keen to punish his fellow man, by supporting a private company to test people for drugs to get their benefits. I'm trying to highlight the hypocrisy of the OP by showing that what he is advocating is a discriminatory and morally wrong policy. I just find it sad how quick some are to jump on the backs of their fellow citizens and kick them even when they are already down.

Whats probably worse, is some of the loudest voices on here against the welfare recipient probably consider themselves as good Christians.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:39 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

There are also some people in this thread arguing that this and the sterilization the OP wants is not a slippery slope. One is even using the fact that this is a slippery slope to prove that people against it are using the slippery slope argument, which means they are somehow wrong....

What's your take on that twisted bit of logic?

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:58 AM
reply to post by ButterCookie

Why drug testing in welfare recipients in a bad idea...

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:26 AM
Being someone who has personally lived around drug addicts who abuse the welfare system I think this is a WONDERFUL idea! I hear all the time of people who have traded benefits like food stamps to drug dealers. It's disgusting. I also feel that people on welfare should have to attend some sort of mandatory job search program because there are hundreds of people who don't even try to find a job because the government is paying for their expenses.

I think assistance programs are definitely lifesavers, but there has to be some accountability and responsibility with both the state AND the citizens receiving the benefits.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:41 AM
Social safety nets have two types of users - jumpers and fallers. Forget the drugs part - a very large percentage of drug users can "use" casually, fail a drug test yet still be productive.
I'd rather find a way of really testing people who receive subsidies to see whether they really, truly need a helping hand to get back on their feet, or are simply taking advantage of the system.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:46 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

Good luck trying to point out the corruption regarding drug testing welfare recipients - very hard work, because some people will just never get it.

It won't be long before this farce spreads from state to state right across the USA.

Which citizens will be the next target? Will it be students? Let's test students too and if they test positive, then take away their education.

I know quite a few pensoners who are quite partial to the doobies, should we test them too and take away their pensions?

America is turning into a hell-hole for citizens, your government has managed to get all you fighting amongst yourselves as well as the rest of the world, whilst at the same time taking your $millions in tax dollars to pay for it.

Corrupt governor Scott is rubbing his hands in glee and greed, and Florida citizens are loving it and applauding him - what a joke

Leave them to it I say.

What they cannot see is that it will not end here - this is probably just the beginning of Red America: You WILL do as you are told - OR STARVE.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:19 AM

Originally posted by James1982

And I'm not even going to talk about sterilization. That's flat out sick. What's next? If you make under a certain amount of money a year, you get sterilized? If you already have a certain number of kids? When does it stop? When YOU say it does? Do you think you are god or something? Get over yourself, stop baaaa baaaaing like a sheep.
edit on 21-6-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)

Are you kidding me?

Who's the sheep?
Is it YOU, someone who follows EVERYONE elses opinions?
Have you ever actually thought about what will happen if people continue breeding at the current rate for the next 480 million years? Or the next 100 years? Or even the next 50 years?
No, you have NOT. You don't need to because you just say the old cliche like all the other sheep, proving that you indeed do not understand the problem of stranding tens of billions of humans on a planet that's only 12 thousand kilometres thick. Tens of billions.

Do you think that humans should have the 'right' to super-populate the planet with ourselves?
Sterilizations, en masse, WILL be part of the future, unless you think humans are just gonna collectively agree to stop having so many children.
Did you know the human population increses by over 6 and a half million EVERY SINGLE MONTH. And yes, that does take into account all of the deaths too.
Six and a half million, every month. AND, because of compounding, every month the population grows by MORE than the month before it. So soon, thank goodness, it will be more like SEVEN million a month, then more, then more, then more, then more.
How many do ya want, dumbass?
Is FORTY million a month too much increase? How about half a billion every month?

What the F**K is wrong with all you 'don't try and stop people from having babies' idiots?
Do you honestly think the world can sustain five hundred trillion humans?
Do you actually understand that it can't even sustain the number of humans it already has? It's failing to keep up, big time.

But hey, you know better a?
That six and a half million more people ALL want oil, ALL want food, ALL want land, ALL want to grow concrete and steel over all the land that feeds the ever increasing waste of resources that YOU call humanity.

"Oh ok then, why don't YOU go and kill yourself" or "You first" or any of these types of responses to my thread are typical of '#,-he-has-a-great-point-but-I'm-too-chicken#-to-say-it' dickheads. But to answer those lame combacks I say this.
If a law was passed, that we must NOW consider the future of the planet (not the future of humanity or civilisation, but the actual planet) by reversing the population growth then I would definately have no problems with it, I would allow it and agree with it and understand the reasons behind it. It's a no brainer.

The Earth is important, a person is important, 'people' are NOT important.
edit on 22-6-2011 by manontrial because: Adding text

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

edit on 22-6-2011 by manontrial because: spelling

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:24 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:26 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:26 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:28 AM
reply to post by manontrial

not the future of humanity or civilisation, but the actual planet

Actually its civilisation what is at stake. Humanity will survive, after the cheap resource bubble bursts and population will be reduced to longterm sustainable levels by natural means (read: poverty, starvation, wars, diseases - yeah, far better than population control laws
). But it will be stone-age humanity. Planet will also survive and over time regenerate everything except non-renewables.

But if we deplete planet resources for pointless breeding before we achieve practical capability for spreading to other planets and stars, and gain access to almost limitless resources of the universe, then we are screwed - you cannot gain resources without starships, you cannot build starships without resources, which you have spent on unsustainable population increase rather than science and technology.
And not only us, all future generations and civilisations which might appear on this planet after us will not have access to cheap resources we had, so their progress will be greatly hampered. Imagine if some civilisation before us used up all the oil, mined majority of accessible minerals, phosphorus etc.. And then died off, or returned to stone age, and over time evolved into us.. How would humanity look now?
So its either us over the course of next few hundred years, or noone from homo species ever.

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

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by ButterCookie

Hahaha sod off, hitler.
While you're mutilating the poor why not go the whole way and put them into gas chambers if they can't get off the dole?
Utter nonsense.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:01 AM
reply to post by ButterCookie

I do believe that people who need help should recieve a helping hand, especially children.I also believe that those that recieve the help should be drug free and be prepared to prove it by testing. However the amount of money it would take to test each individual would be astrnomical and since we are already close to bankruptcy we do not need another expense.

The amount of money saved from not providing assistance would be squandered anyway and spent on testing others so its not really a great idea. I would rather spend the money they would earmark for testing and require some education assistance and an 8 hour a day, those unwilling to participate would then be dropped from the program, those who would participate would have the opportunity to get ahead

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:10 AM
Welfare: BAD
Drug laws and forced drug tests: BAD

Why use one bad idea to limit another bad idea? Instead of subjecting welfare bums to drug tests, just do away with the friggin welfare. Then you don't need drug tests to get it.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:25 AM
This idea of mandatorily drug-testing welfare claimants is flawed on many levels. Leaving some of the more obvious ethical problems aside, there are a number of more practical problems with this proposal.

If someone on welfare tests positive for drug-use, then how would you actually prove that they bought the drugs with money which they had received from the government ?

There is clearly going to be no proof of purchase pertaining to the illegal substance(s) in question. The drugs may have been bought with money which didn't come from a welfare programme.

In addition, the assumption that the drugs were even paid for is also an unprovable guess which would not stand up to any reasonable legal challenge.

So, bearing in mind the actual practical and legal impossibilities of seriously enforcing this idea, what are the true intentions behind it ?

Is it an attempt to give the authorities ''reasonable suspicion'' for searching the houses and flats of those who test positive, with the intention of pressing charges for drug offences ? Is it an attempt to force poor people into rehab ? Or perhaps it's just a ill-thought out, knee-jerk reaction from people who aren't bothered about other people starving to death on the streets, just so long as they can have a 1 cent reduction on their tax rate ?

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by MiloNickels

Welfare: BAD

Welfare is GOOD.

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by DJMSN

The amount of money saved from not providing assistance would be squandered anyway and spent on testing others so its not really a great idea.

There will be no money saved because recipients will continue to get their welfare payments after they have tested positive. It isn't taken away from them at all, it will be paid to them via another person whom the recipient nominates.

The drug-testing of welfare applicants is a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' hard-earned dollar, all of which goes straight to the governor's drug-test company, AKA his pockets.

One person and his wife will benefit greatly from this law, and that person is the bent governor. The taxpayers lose out again BIG time.

The OP's idea to sterilise positive-tested applicants is absolutely abominable
What a bonehead. Take your extreme commie idea's and clear off to China where your proposal will more than likely be welcomed with open arms.

America? Ha! - home of the once free, and the land of the corrupt

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

What does envy and jealousy have to do with the fact that those people are not contributing in a working class society? They receive free cash to sit on their ass all day while doing drugs. It is not considered envy if the last thing you want to do is ruin your life. As I see it, all you are doing is spiting out Illogical statements

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by ButterCookie

it may sound harsh, but i have to agree with the OP. if the government makes it hard on people sucking on the government tit then maybe they would be more motivated to get a job, any job. i think that able bodied people on public assitance should go and do all the manual labor intensive jobs that so many illegal aliens do. in my opinion it would be a win win, less ilegals and it would motivate people on public assiatance to get a job that does not demand so much manual labor.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in