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.
Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by GreenBicMan
Well i have had gov trying to run my life since i was at school in uk, and destroying it all the time.
Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by snowspirit
Companies pay into the system. I think it is based on how many employees you have etc. But someone can correct me.
Originally posted by works4dhs
first, the writers of the law probably are trying to weed out a few recepients to lower the costs.
they might have suggested alcohol AND drug figuring they'd hear objections and could remove the alcohol portion and call it a compromise.
I certainly hate the idea of any of my tax dollar$ going to anyone taking (illegal of course) drugs.
in re to congress; the lushes aren't the problem. It's the stone cold sober acheive maniacs that are making things happen (all the wrong things). Picture a bunch of Rahm Emmanuel idealogues running things.
(or, depending on your political persuasion, an army of Dick Cheneys).
Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45
I think that this is a good thing. I don't want somebody spending my hard earned money on drugs while they are on unemployment.
Originally posted by jerico65
I've got no problems with this. I think if you're getting unemployment or welfare, you should be tested for drugs. If they want, make sure they aren't drunk when they pick up their check, too.
And testing Congress is an even better idea! I'm willing to bet the grunts and office workers have to do the piss test, but they Congresscritters themselves don't.
Originally posted by GreenBicMan
But please, do go into detail why people on unemployment should be tested for drugs. In addition, why are you qualified to tell others how to spend their money?