Like most folks in this country, I have a job (matter of fact, I have 2). I work, they pay me.I pay my taxes & the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.  >:( >:(

In order to get that paycheck, in my case, 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 [smiley=smokin.gif] [smiley=mad.gif]

So, here is my question: 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 rear-end doing drugs while I work.
[smiley=sleep.gif] [smiley=sleep.gif]

Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check or a damn Link Card?

I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!

Something has to change in this country - AND SOON!

Lady Luv....  [smiley=angry.gif] [smiley=angry.gif]

Love it.  I'd vote for it!

As we say up here in Boston:

"That would be pissa"

"Urine or you're out." That's really cool! And a really good idea!

LadiyLuv - I have always loved how you think!

Hugs
Carol

I like the idea. I would of taken one anytime I was collecting unemployment. But good luck getting that past the ACLU. They would fight that one tooth and nail.

Mike

Now Ruthie, with talk like that, you might want to be careful. You could be labeled as one of those racist teabagers, too. ;) ;D

perhaps if they legalized pot unemployed people could grow pot and then they would have an income.

unless of coarse your a drug lord in mexico. in which case i would imagine your income would drop off somewhat

Great idea...

LA Rep. John LaBruzzo is proposing legislation for such a requirement of those receiving assistance.

I would add an amendment to the bill that would require legislators to submit to the test as well.

That would surely kill the bill.

Steve G

stevegeebe wrote on May 8^th, 2010 at 7:40am:

LA Rep. John LaBruzzo is proposing legislation for such a requirement of those receiving assistance. I would add an amendment to the bill that would require legislators to submit to the test as well. That would surely kill the bill. Steve G

Funny you should say this Steve.  Employees of the state of LA are required to pass a drug test for employment and are subject to random drug tests, however none of our elected officials are required to pass any tests.

"Certain employees"...eh Carolyn?

Steve G

You might say that.  In fact, when the good legislators of LA drafted this plan (for the *employees*), the refused to allow the testing to extend to them.  Wonder if Charles *cocaine* Jones had anything to do with that?

I suppose it could be done, but I wonder how effective and/or useful it would be, vis a vis the cost of administering the tests. 

Like pre-employment urine testing, I'm curious whether it would be more a "feel-good" measure than anything else.  Pre-employment urine testing tends to net the dumb applicants, but that's about it.  Ultimately, it's an IQ test, not a drug test.

Just by way of illustration, take a look at the detection periods for various drugs in urine testing:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE;  

There are plenty of instances (I'm sure any of us could point to one of them) where a perception that "something" ought to be done, results in "something" being put into place.  But the "something" may not help one bit.  If it doesn't, what good is it, after all?

On a positive note, if such a program were instituted, I can see where the stock in drug-testing companies might rise significantly.   ;)

Best,

George

 

Quote:

On a positive note, if such a program were instituted, I can see where the stock in drug-testing companies might rise significantly.

There ya go. Finally an angle that makes sense for drug companies! A way for someone to cash in. Hard to believe it doesn't fly.....

Interesting idea though. No doubt it would work too well so it hasn't a chance.

Charlie START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Actually a "hair folical" works better (and longer). Harder to "fake"...

And "yes" the system is broken, but "fixable" -- everything is fixable - just take some effort (and a NEW Congress willing to do it!).

I'm for passing a law that a BILL cannot be over 10 pages long -- by doing this it would eliminate all BS, cut out all unnecessary lawyer talk, elimate pork barrell stuff and get it in plain talk where someone could understand it. When debate time came - it would be easy -- it say THIS- what's to argue... let's get 'r done!!! Maybe then our LEGISLATORS could READ the damn things!!!

Piss in or Piss Off! I love it!

But like others have said it would never make it or if it did it would be limited and they would never include themselves. I worked as an IT consultant up in Sacramento CA for a few years and I had a job at a religious school of putting in a network and installing software to monitor what internet sites the students were visiting and blocking bad ones, all sounds good right? Well when I was talking about how it worked and they found out it could also monitor staff of the church/school all hell broke loose and I was told that in no way could it monitor anyone but the students. Lol Now what do you suppose all these religious people where looking at on the internet that they did not want anyone to know about? lol

M.R. wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

Mike Now Ruthie, with talk like that, you might want to be careful. You could be labeled as one of those racist teabagers, too. ;) ;D

  ;D ;D ;D ;D

BarbaraD wrote on May 10^th, 2010 at 3:02am:

Actually a "hair folical" works better (and longer). Harder to "fake"... And "yes" the system is broken, but "fixable" -- everything is fixable - just take some effort (and a NEW Congress willing to do it!). I'm for passing a law that a BILL cannot be over 10 pages long -- by doing this it would eliminate all BS, cut out all unnecessary lawyer talk, elimate pork barrell stuff and get it in plain talk where someone could understand it. When debate time came - it would be easy -- it say THIS- what's to argue... let's get 'r done!!! Maybe then our LEGISLATORS could READ the damn things!!!

Every single dad-gummed bill anybody wants to be passed MUST be a stand-alone (no add on, no pork, no nuttin), up-down vote in both the house and senate.  Imagine how many pages would have to be read by all of our (all parties included here) imbecilic people running our government - one or two pages max?  Then, let's hear from them that they didn't have time to read the two pages. 

Goodby to all of them -from every party.

Think this will ever happen?

Doubt it - at least not in my lifetime!

Sandy

LadyLuv wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 1:54pm:

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 rear-end doing drugs while I work.

ok but what about smoking some pot then re roofing your garage or maybe clearing some brush on your own property while laid off from the job you get wiz quizzed for.

The biggest problem with drug testing is just what johnny posted.  It does not tell you if that person is *partaking* now, only that they have.