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.

 

Florida's urine test for poor people yields results

page: 8
57
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I don't understand all the people against mandatory drug tests for welfare reciepients.I have to take a drug test for most of the jobs I go on,why shouldn't they when they recieve the taxpayers money.




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AliceBlackman
Yup the economy is down the pan because of the wall street heist but we need to focus on low income earners who recieve benefits to make sure they're not doing drugs. Not providing policies to provide better paid jobs to get these low earners more hours or better pay, nope we need our elected officials to pocket tax payer money for all this testing instead....

atlantapost.com...



I just KNOW that all the "political debate" shows are going to be focused on whether this is a good idea or not -- as if it would SAVE any money.

Were they expecting 50%? That would SAVE some money -- maybe more than what the testing takes away from the poor. But even as CLEAN as these welfare recipients apparently are -- everyone NOT getting the money is still going to be up a creek without a paddle. The point is DRUGS are the least of their problems.

>> If you can buy drugs while on Welfare -- that's some really good budgeting.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


Fair enough.

I also dislike jokes about food stamps and medicaid since I had both the last time I was unemployed and they helped me until I found the job I currently have.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stillsearchin
 


It's not as simple as you think it is. That's the problem.

Forcing those who receive social welfare to be drug tested is discriminatory as it implies that they are already drug abusers.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by stillsearchin
I don't understand all the people against mandatory drug tests for welfare reciepients.I have to take a drug test for most of the jobs I go on,why shouldn't they when they recieve the taxpayers money.


Innocent before proven guilty?

They aren't operating heavy machinery?

Maybe -- they might have FAMILIES that need money -- you know?

If you want to make the POOR do everything right BEFORE they can get some help -- why do we have less intrusive standards on tax cheating churches, businesses and charity organizations?

We catch some poor guy stealing a loaf of bread while 10 banks rip us off for a billion every day. Not only is this lowering the bar for ethics -- it's moronic. We are spending a fortune to save pennies.

>> The $98,000 saved is only icing on the cake -- the real FUN for people supporting this is kicking deadbeats while they are down. Maybe supporters of these mandatory tests can form a "clean society" gang and go around beating up bums.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
So because I have to take a drug test to go to work implies I'm a drug user also? No, they want a safe and efficient work force.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by stillsearchin
 


No.

But don't you think that's an intrusion on YOUR liberty? Why should a corporation have a right to demand drug testing?



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by stillsearchin
 


It's not as simple as you think it is. That's the problem.

Forcing those who receive social welfare to be drug tested is discriminatory as it implies that they are already drug abusers.


But that 2% rate means that these poor people are LESS than the national average in terms of drug abuse.

>> I think that some Conservatives owe them an apology for assuming they were "wasting government money" on drugs -- while they actually had higher standards than those who want to pre-judge them.



This just makes me sick -- and the people who don't understand why we have an ISSUE with this -- have no spine or moral compass. We cannot be a great country if we are not a good country first.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I personally feel this is a great idea, and I also think that if this was done in Virginia, the percent would be much higher. A few houses down are some serious crack heads who sell their food stamps for cash and drugs, and they don't even try to hide it.
My family has suffered a loss in jobs and so forth, but insted of asking for a hand out, we planted our own garden and make a little money a a farmers market, and although I know a lot of people don't have the land for this, it is just something to think about as an alternative.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   


It may also be that the welfare recipients are all just using entheogens/hallucinogens Basically free to acquire Don't show up in a test
reply to post by earthbell
 

This is just one post that stated they can't test for hallucinogens there are at least three others.......

This is just flat out FALSE, they can test for all Hallucinogens the tests are specific to the type however. This is because there are so many chemicals that fall into this group.


edit on 28-8-2011 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2011 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2011 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by The Sword
 




Who gave you the right to judge people getting public assistance?

The people on assistance gave me the right when they took my money. I could use that money for my kids.


I can identify with your gripe, but not the immediate assumption that everyone in need is in need because they are lazy or drug addicts.

But this is what we do now. Our whole country is at odds with itself. We don't like people for their driving habits or the clothes they wear or if they are over weight or the music they play or if they are poor or they are rich. The problems we have are in large part due to poor leadership from both parties that saw our industrial base; the source of income for what used to be termed the great middle class, off to China.

I can't presume the worst of a total stranger... and if they swipe food stamps and don't deserve them, the sin is theirs. But if they are in genuine need and I turn them away, the sin is my own.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
as far as I'm concerned it's not an intrusion on my liberty.I work in a hazardous environment,it"s also for my safety,but if someone is going to ask for the taxpayer money they should also be employable.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by stillsearchin
as far as I'm concerned it's not an intrusion on my liberty.I work in a hazardous environment,it"s also for my safety,but if someone is going to ask for the taxpayer money they should also be employable.


What I question is whether we immediately forfeit our rights against unwarranted searches simply because we ask for public assistance. Our crime would be that we are poor. To judge beyond that would be to assume the worst of a total stranger with no more than a stereotype.

I understand the issue with drug testing in the workplace where there is a danger of causing harm to others. But let's get these folks in that job first. If they fail the drug test there, we have sufficient cause to deny them any more benefits. If they pass the test, they are working and still off the dole.

That seems the better avenue.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by stillsearchin
 


So, are you saying that you should be able to work to receive public assistance? Down with disability, SS, and medicare?

ETA:
Not trolling, just asking to clear up what your position is. I do agree about a safe workplace... wouldn't want your coworker all wacked out on crap with his head screwed on wrong when your life is possibly in his hands.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Earthscum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by relpobre000
 


Actually, yeah. A lady I knew who was a dealer routinely accepted "food stamp" debit cards in return for drugs. She'd trade drugs equaling half the "value" of the card. $100 card, $50 in drugs. $300, $150.

I'm sure this isn't common, but hey.....you asked. XD



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
this whole program is retarded.
1stly, these people shouldn't be punished for having a problem, they should be helped.
Take away a drug attics funds, with kids to support, I'd bet they turn to crime.
2ndly, these are American citizens in need...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Joking about poverty is like joking about cheating, or race, or sex, or any of the other crappy stuff people joke about. It's in bad taste, so of course people are gonna do it.

EDIT: Dunno why I put "sex" up there, sex is not crappy. O_O

Glad you got a job. Just lost mine. Argh.
edit on 8/28/2011 by Tsurugi because: Wrong word!



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137
I'm not seeing a problem, If your not on drugs than your fine. If your on drugs you have no reason to be on welfare. My TAX dollars shouldn't be used to pay these people. They are Scum, not people on welfare just people on drugs. They really don't need to be living.

wow, i wish more taxpayers shared similar sentiment about their Congressional representatives,
or maybe the state employees from agriculture fields, water treatment facilities, nuclear labs and city govt ... i guess because the PD, Firemen and Med techs know how to hide it ... they're entitled to continue on with it, right?

Who cares that more than 30% of all medical professionals have some history of drug abuse or use ... or the common knowledge that many psychotherapists of multiple forms only became that way During their own personal rehab experiences.

this, was a complete waste and abuse of the most weak and weary in society today ... what a complete failure.
as for saving Almost $100G ... they could have done that and more in every state with a Congressional pay cut.
See for yourself ... The List ... and remember, in Congress, insider trading is frequent, encouraged and abounding ... why does that matter? what do you think Governor Scott will be doing with his newly found, monthly fortune???



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by The Sword
 




Who gave you the right to judge people getting public assistance?

The people on assistance gave me the right when they took my money. I could use that money for my kids.


Because, you know, no one on public assistance could have possibly paid taxes in their lives. You know, nothing like the post just two above this one where I pointed out that that's exactly what happened in at least one case.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by stillsearchin
 


No.

But don't you think that's an intrusion on YOUR liberty? Why should a corporation have a right to demand drug testing?



A company should ONLY be allowed to rate your performance. Some people take prescription medicine that makes them PEFORM BETTER.

Just because "all these companies do it" doesn't make it right. Shouldn't we be drug testing all the CEO's who got Wall Street bail outs and the Oil Execs who got tax breaks for offshore drilling? I mean -- THEY accept government money -- are they worthy? The question is only asked of those who get the least.

WE have more oversight on teachers than we do on Fed Chairmen -- and can anyone tell me what the results of having high standards in low places is? Our justice system only works on people making less than a Million a year...

I just saw another "news exclusive" on TV -- they had caught "phony repairmen" bilking customers. Such NERVE of these crack news reporters -- going after nickel and dime crooks while they get a quarter million a month in advertising from million-dollar crooks.


The War on Drugs is a farce -- SOME drugs are bad for you -- but so is too much ice cream. A Diabetic is in more danger from the wrong food than a heroine addict -- should we be testing EVERY diabetic for correct treatment and firing them if they don't comply? Hallucinogenics might actually have a beneficial effect on some people -- especially those locked in depression -- but they don't make billions of dollars for a drug company, so they aren't legal.

I don't do illegal drugs -- that's my choice. There are plenty of high functioning doctors who do plenty of pot. There are lot's of executives who "experimented with drugs" while in College -- I went to school with some of them. But if you grow up in the suburbs and get caught -- it's a wrist slap. If you are from the inner city or projects -- you go to jail.

Maybe going to jail should be illegal -- because committing crimes and then "moving on" to a fulfilling career after college seems to allow for productive citizens.


>> But the SAVINGS are to put desperate people in a steel trap. Someone who might have done a few drugs -- won't be signing up for help, because they don't want to get tested. During the LAST Great Depression, farmers would pour kerosine on their extra fruits and vegetables -- because nobody would buy them if they could get them for free.

Who cares if poisoning the well kills people -- because we all drink champagne, right?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join