- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
how did the lawmakers fare when tested for drugs?
Oh burn - good point.
how did the lawmakers fare when tested for drugs?
Instead of wasting even more money on drug testing, just eliminate welfare.
End of story!
I agree, they should be put through the same psychological and medical tests that you have to take. Everyone should get free medical care, right?I would like to test all TeaBrains receiving medicare for liver functions. A full panel. If they are drinking and/or smoking, I say we cut off their blood pressure, heart, and diabetes meds.
98 Percent of Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test
So much for that myth. Thanks for wasting money on hysteria over something that is barely a problem.
Many of the alleged "leeches" on welfare now are the people who, until 2 years ago, were part of a functional work force and were productive contributors to economy. Now their lives are in chaos, their investments for the future are disintegrating before their eyes, and they are reduced to lesser prosperity. So... let's kick them while they're down and imply that they're drug abusers as well!
so much BS. if you know you are going to be tested...it is easy to pass. Crack/cocaine, the drug of choice for many deadbeats, only stays in your system at detectable levels for 72 hours. DHR is a govt agency, and as such if horribly inefficient. if FL runs their program anything like AL does, the people know at least a week in advance when they are going to be tested.
When we were doing foster care, one of the mothers was a crackhead, she knew that every Thursday afternoon she was going to get tested. So she would stop smoking crack early Monday morning and by thursday she was clean. She got caught only because I just happened to see her sitting in the DHR parking lot one thursday after her weekly test/visit smoking the pipe and I ratted her out.
The key word here is "applicants" if new applicants are not testing positive for drugs the law is working by keeping druggies from applying and swelling welfare rolls. My question is why isn't everyone on welfare rolls being tested, applicants and old timers alike? That may create some different results and actually shrink welfare rolls. I think libs careful focus on the word applicant skews the stats.
I dont think the intent of the law should be to keep people from getting help. It should be to help people get help that need it, to help people asses priorities, and to identify those that need further help getting clean as a part of building a path to a better future. I support the drug testing as a means of helping people reach a point of self sufficiency, not soleley as a means of punshing drug addicted persons.The key word here is "applicants" if new applicants are not testing positive for drugs the law is working by keeping druggies from applying and swelling welfare rolls. My question is why isn't everyone on welfare rolls being tested, applicants and old timers alike? That may create some different results and actually shrink welfare rolls. I think libs careful focus on the word applicant skews the stats.
I dont think the intent of the law should be to keep people from getting help. It should be to help people get help that need it, to help people asses priorities, and to identify those that need further help getting clean as a part of building a path to a better future. I support the drug testing as a means of helping people reach a point of self sufficiency, not soleley as a means of punshing drug addicted persons.
Cocaine is a little expensive for deadbeats, at least in non crack form.
We dont have tests for some of the new **** that they are using now. Bath salts...formaldehyde...geeeezus...which is why they all smoke crack. cheap and easy to get. and, as I said, easy to beat a drug test that you know is coming. not like weed that is detectable in your system for weeks.
Because if they can afford that crap then they don't need to be collecting welfare! If they're honestly stupid enough to spend their money on drugs when they need to buy food then I have no sympathy for them if they starve.
Someone needs to check their math Using the figures in this article there is no way the cost of drug testing 1500 (top end...the article suggests 1000-1500) at $30 a pop, thats an outside max of 540,000 in costs for the tests, not $178 million. The $178 million figure is the total cost of the welfare program. Once the program is in place they should simply conduct random unannounced tests. Most folks can clean up for three days for their months worth of free cheese.
I agree. However cutting off addicts because they use (hey...guess what addicts do...) only ensures they will continue to be addicts. Now, take them off the welfare roles and DONT get them additional help. Guess how much they are going to cost you? I guarantee it will be a helluva lot more. A single ER visit will more than dwarf your monthly medicare cost. A hospitalization will fully absorb your annual welfare costs. Im not suggesting you let them continue...Im saying use the program, identify who needs help, then attempt to get them help. If they dont take advantage of it, then you cut them off, or adjust services.I agree with your rationale to some extent but at the end of the day I ask myself, do I really want the government taking money out of my hard-earned paycheck to give to someone so they could buy food, which they could have bought in the first place if they didn't spend it on _______ (insert drug of choice here)?
I understand that addiction is a very powerful thing, however I know from experience that people will use the "power of addiction" as an excuse for being too lazy, too self absorbed to wake up and smell the coffee and take control of their own life.
Where does the Bill of Rights state the federal government should be responsible to pay for individual citizens? Or for that matter the states (since we are discussing state programs)?Last I checked, a dime bag is waaaayyy cheaper than a college degree, or medical insurance, or any one of the many things that welfare recipients don't have. Besides, do you think it's right to inventory every single expenditure of a welfare recipient? Are they suddenly not allowed to spend money on enjoyment? Must they only purchase the cheaper brands of food, even if they don't taste as good? Must they get the fattier burgers, because they're a little cheaper? So, it's okay for government to be all up in someone else's life, but not yours, because your job pays a living wage, and theirs doesn't...
Totally in agreement here. Clearly the bill of rights doesn't include poor people. That's the price they pay for being shown a little compassion. If we have to take on the burden of saving them from starvation, then they shouldn't be able to have basic civil rights. This is America, folks, where you're only a citizen if you make at least 30k a year.
Totally in agreement here. Clearly the bill of rights doesn't include poor people. That's the price they pay for being shown a little compassion. If we have to take on the burden of saving them from starvation, then they shouldn't be able to have basic civil rights. This is America, folks, where you're only a citizen if you make at least 30k a year.
Where does the Bill of Rights state the federal government should be responsible to pay for individual citizens? Or for that matter the states (since we are discussing state programs)?
I think maybe he realizes he was just talking out of his ass again...unless he has some mystery version of the BoR that include Mandatory State Welfare Payments.wow, didn't realize that the "right" to use illegal drugs was part of the bill of rights. remind me...what number is that again?
if you are dependent on the charity or others for your survival, then you have to accept any limitations they put on said charity. you don't like it??? don't accept the check :shrug:
every winter in my area there are at least a couple of winos/bums who freeze to death under a bridge somewhere because they would rather drink/do drugs than give them up for a bed in a shelter. hard to feel much sympathy for someone who chooses drugs over life.
Right to privacy is all good...until you decide you want to partake of someones programs. Does your employer have a right to conduct drug tests? And you think drug tests just impact the poor? What world do you live in?Personal privacy... I didn't think you needed it spelled out to you. Random drug tests violate several amendments, most notably the fourth and ninth. But you don't seem to think that matters.
Maybe, but it's a start. I don't see anyone putting up proof to the paranoid claims that welfare recipients are mostly abusing the system. It's all speculation. At least this is an actual attempt at verification. It's not surprise to me that the results are not very dramatic. Too bad FA had to spend so much money on it.
Why is it so important that unemployed people don't get high in their spare time? They have serious problems. They need something to make it easier. Why is it so important to deny them some pleasure?
Paschendale said:Last I checked, a dime bag is waaaayyy cheaper than a college degree, or medical insurance, or any one of the many things that welfare recipients don't have. Besides, do you think it's right to inventory every single expenditure of a welfare recipient? Are they suddenly not allowed to spend money on enjoyment? Must they only purchase the cheaper brands of food, even if they don't taste as good? Must they get the fattier burgers, because they're a little cheaper? So, it's okay for government to be all up in someone else's life, but not yours, because your job pays a living wage, and theirs doesn't...
Are they suddenly not allowed to spend money on enjoyment? No. Are they suddenly not allowed to spend my money? Yes, they're not allowed.
I'm sorry that socialism subsidizes irresponsibility and economic inefficiency. Tell you what - if you want to create your own feel-good private charity and hand out joints at the local street corner on your own dime, knock yourself out. I won't attempt to stop you for one minute.
That's the fun with liberals - they're experts on how to spend other people's money.