The Job - Urine Test

stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB… SO I AGREE 100%
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test. Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ? . . . Something has to change in this country—and soon!
-anonymous
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2665042
I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB… SO I AGREE 100%
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test. Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ? . . . Something has to change in this country—and soon!
-anonymous
When I first looked at your comment I wanted to blast you saying how I disagree... but as I think about it... perhaps its not a bad idea.. Chemical dependency may be part of the reason why they are not able to find a decent job.. The welfare program should include education, rehabilitation, and resources IMO.
Funny thing is that most of drug abuse is done by working class(blue & white) americans who abuse prescription meds... Combine all heroin,cocaine,etc users...they wouldn't equal amount of prescription drug users..
 
cowfishrule

cowfishrule

Active Member
ahh the great liberal "wealth distribution" system.
i agree. clean = reward.
would smother the want for illegal and legal drugs, but it might also drive crime up.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
http:///forum/post/2665052
ahh the great liberal "wealth distribution" system.
its not wealth distribution...but helping people who otherwise wouldn't be able to provide shelter or food for their families... for all those who believe it should go... it is a necessary role for our gov't to fill... Of course there could be improvements made to make it more effiecient.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2665051
When I first looked at your comment I wanted to blast you saying how I disagree... but as I think about it... perhaps its not a bad idea.. Chemical dependency may be part of the reason why they are not able to find a decent job.. The welfare program should include education, rehabilitation, and resources IMO.
Funny thing is that most of drug abuse is done by working class(blue & white) americans who abuse prescription meds... Combine all heroin,cocaine,etc users...they wouldn't equal amount of prescription drug users..
I used to live in south dallas, my neighbor was a coke dealer, and it really saddened me to see these guys drive up in their 40 grand cars and trucks, with babyseats in the back, buying the stuff.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2665105
denying them based on use of drugs may be... This wouldn't be a simple change to make to the system...

Actually it wouldn't, there is nothing in the constitution about drug use as a viable right.
If a job can fire someone for failing a drug test, then the welfare agency could as well. Otherwise it would have been deemed unconstitutional a long time ago. Money is not a right therefore to withhold money not earned is not unconstitional, their act of "earning" is passing the drug test.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2665105
denying them based on use of drugs may be... This wouldn't be a simple change to make to the system...
Politically it would never happen, Between the ACLU and democrats, that would be political suicide.
But their is alot of precedence for conditions to federal aid.
I don't think it is a serious legal issue, there could be a privacy argument. But you don't HAVE to sign up for welfare. It would be a political issue more than anything.
 
ruaround

ruaround

Active Member
why would making a person be tested for something illegal in the first place to recieve something that wasnt theirs and DID NOT work for be against the constitution... that is the biggest heap of liberal crap i have ever read... you Dems seriously need to get you heads checked when it comes to handouts!!!
like CFR said... test clean and you get a prize... dont test clean and go knock on the door of a Dem and look for that hand out!!!
 
pontius

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
http:///forum/post/2665222
why would making a person be tested for something illegal in the first place to recieve something that wasnt theirs and DID NOT work be against the constitution... that is the biggest heap of liberal crap i have ever read... you Dems seriously need to get you heads checked when it comes to handouts!!!
like CFR said... test clean and you get a prize... dont test clean and go knock on the door of a Dem and look for that hand out!!!
post of the day.
 
xtreeme

xtreeme

Member
Sounds great, most theories do till you see them in action (real world).
Once you make a law it expands and is hard to get rid of (patriot act for one). Give up your privacy on one thing and where does it end? Must see the other things that would be bunched with it. Matter of privacy really. At work if you do drugs might hurt someone or yourself. Could cost money to co. or lives.
Real reason they drug test is two reason both for the Company benefit. One for fact of being hurt or hurt others, second which part the same is insurance break for co. that test. Its about money thats all. But after all test watch rates go up. No insurance rate break for something that is forced. Look at car insurance once it was law, went way up. More accidents then before? NO, more drivers, NO it raised too fast for such things to be the influence. Fact was now you had to have it- they could charge anything.
Just like power monopoly in us. Electric co. overcharges but who is the comp? Can make rate whatever they like to.
 
prime311

prime311

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2665118
If a job can fire someone for failing a drug test, then the welfare agency could as well. Otherwise it would have been deemed unconstitutional a long time ago. Money is not a right therefore to withhold money not earned is not unconstitional, their act of "earning" is passing the drug test.

Actually, in some states I'm pretty sure you can't fire someone for drug use as chemical dependency is considered a disease. You can choose not to hire someone for failing a drug test though. This is IIRC.
 
digitydash

digitydash

Active Member
I vote yes to drug test welfare people.Also the most sought after pre scription are OxyContin.Which basiclly is synthedic Heroin.I had a friend hook on them and it is a nasty drug once it gots ahold of you it is a hard drug to kick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top