It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
(and again, for the ignorant among us ... alcohol is NOT a controlled substance
Originally posted by Muttley2012
Originally posted by TomServo
In the end, the concept has the potential to improve the integrity of the welfare system. In the end, its a valid compromise between those who support and those who oppose.
To me, a valid compromise would be to require welfare recipients to do work for the state...pick up roadside trash, community improvement projects etc. and not require a drug test. It's a win/win scenario. No additional tax burden of the cost for the drug test AND the recipients are giving back in a tangible way.
Originally posted by TomServo
I dont see your angle with this post. He broke the law and is paying the price. I dont see him asking me to foot his bill. There is the difference. Completely different from the sopa story. He is not on welfare, and he hasnt failed a drug test. I dont remember the welfare screening having anything to do with alcohol anyway...
Originally posted by CALGARIAN
It costs the state, taxpayers and time. I think they tried it before and like 90% of recipients passed?
Originally posted by Afterthought
OK, just so I'm understanding this.
If you have a job, especially an elected post, you're free to do whatever you want even if you choose to get behind the wheel intoxicated.
If you don't have a job, you're automatically considered a threat to society.
If you have a job, your judgement calls are excuseable and you'd NEVER touch any drugs.
If you don't have a job, you're never to be trusted and we'll always suspect that you're indulging in some illicit substance.
Well, since alcohol is legal and nobody has a problem with alcohol. everyone with a job can keep their licenses, but those on welfare should not be allowed to drive since they'll probably be driving drunk the first chance they get.
Am I on the right track here?
In the fantasy world these politicians want, EVERYONE should be drug tested.
In the real world, NOBODY should be drug tested because we are all innocent until proven guilty.
This politician has been proven guilty. Maybe we should install a breathalyzer machine in his vehicle so he has to blow before it will start.
Let's all stop assuming that everyone on welfare is guilty and has to prove their innocence. When and if they are caught with illicit substance(s) and/or driving drunk, then we should have to drug test them.
i really liked what you had to say -
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
I find this story quite appropriate:
Law-maker A wants to make receiving welfare money contingent on being drug-free. Other law-makers makes laws requiring that having a driver's license is contingent on being alcohol-free.
Of course its important that Law-maker A now lose his license! Is that any less a draconian punishment that losing the money you require for housing/food? Or is this a case of one law for them and another for the rest of us.
Perhaps Law-maker A can use the money that his company will make conducting the drug-tests on welfare recipients to hire a chauffeur? (That is the biggest part of the scandle here that no-one else has mentioned - that Law-maker A is not only a drunk driver, he also owns shares in the company that does the drug tests and stands to gain a bundle if his law is passed).
Tired of Control Freaks
already facing monumental hurdles to overcome, ranging from dealing with health concerns to trying to find jobs to readjusting to their families and communities, this policy makes successfully doing any of those even more difficult. Researchers have found that policies such as these are particularly hard on women, at a time when the female inmate population is rising.
Symbolism matters in the United States and it is clearly wrong to honor a man who frequently manipulated the law to achieve his personal goals". It’s doubtful if anyone’s reputation has plummeted quite so far and so drastically as J Edgar Hoover’s -
Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by spinalremain
Yep now we know what he does with that huge salary that he doesnt earn.
Public servants should make a median wage and be under all the same laws and regulations to recieve their pay as those on public assistance. Same with ALL agencys funded by taxpayer money.