point of view; Urine test

[tenntucky]

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 butt, doing drugs, while I work... Can you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ????? :eek:

[RocketRider]

Sounds like a valid point to me!

RR~

[EKY.MTN.HUNTER]

Good food for thought tenntucky, I'm sure some older members who are a little more political savvy then I will weigh in on this (multi, buckfever, Daking, GSP, Grouser(s)) What do you guys think? The only problem I could see with it is the cost of drug testing so many people because lets face it, there's a allot on welfare. BUT I'm sure the cut do to failed drug tests would easily pay for the price of drug testing. One more question for you tenntucky. What about little Ron and Tina, the son and daughter of a dead beat "user" father. I'm sure he puts some of his gov. check towards drugs, but again I'm sure a portion of it is used to sustain at least a few of his children’s needs. The fact that these children might have something taken away that they need is the only issue that makes me think twice about it, but truthfully I'm a little torn over your proposal.

[hannibal]

a failed drug test could lead to a child being taken away by child welfare services.

[WhiteRubi]

I wrote no less than half a dozen papers on welfare reform in college. It has gotten way out of control. If you mandate drug screening, they will find a way to beat the drug screen. Most welfare lifers work really hard at not working.

You have to start somewhere. You have to find some reason for them to WANT to work. It's a lot easier to sit at home and get a check than it is to go work for a check.

It's really unfortunate because there are people that need assistance and get a bad label due to the many abusers.

[hannibal]

You have to start somewhere. You have to find some reason for them to WANT to work. It's a lot easier to sit at home and get a check than it is to go work for a check.

Exactly you have to start somewhere. Mandatory drug testing is a start. If you want to pick up your check...piss in this cup. Maybe even hair samples. Hair drug testing is hard to beat. Make it more difficult for them to get their checks. Decrease benefits paid to the point where they have to make a choice. Eat or pay the cable bill. Eat or go to the club. Eat or drink beer. Heating the house or car with rims. Make the essentials within reach, but the luxuries well outside of reach through legal fundraising. Once those choices have to be made, we might see more people wanting to work. To balance we need more after school activities for the children of these people to participate in. Where do they go while mommy and daddy work. Hopefully the Y instead of the local slackers.

[12 pointer]

a failed drug test could lead to a child being taken away by child welfare services.

Good point. I vote for them all the way. Great point made!!!!!!!!!!

If you can't pass a drug test, you don't need any kids!!!!!!! JMO of course.

[WhiteRubi]

a failed drug test could lead to a child being taken away by child welfare services.


Yep, good point. Also, a failed drug test is indicative of drug use, which, last time I checked, is illegal. Take away the kids and throw them (parents) in jail where they should be forced to work to pay the costs of housing them.

[SPURX2]

a failed drug test could lead to a child being taken away by child welfare services.
that may not necessarily be the worst case sceanario, just a thought, i know each individual situation would be different

[hannibal]

thats what i was getting at.

[SPURX2]

thats what i was getting at.
sorry about that, thought you meant it would be a bad thing

[fuzzy]

I also agree 100 percent tenntucky, but I also agree and wonder,worry,about the children. I work for the State HWY Dept. and we have to do random drug test often.
James D.

[hwright]

a failed drug test could lead to a child being taken away by child welfare services.


You would be hard pressed to find anyone on here more conservative then me. But I disagree with this statement. If you let the goverment take away kids for a failed drug test then whats next? Will you take them away for a failed drivers test too? I am not about taking kids away from parents. Now on the other hand if a parent is driving impaired or lets a kid get hurt or indangered while they are high then that is something different. And BTW, I am not a dope head.... :p HEATH

[hannibal]

You would be hard pressed to find anyone on here more conservative then me. But I disagree with this statement. If you let the goverment take away kids for a failed drug test then whats next? Will you take them away for a failed drivers test too? I am not about taking kids away from parents. Now on the other hand if a parent is driving impaired or lets a kid get hurt or indangered while they are high then that is something different. And BTW, I am not a dope head.... :p HEATH

So the only time a child is endangered is when they are riding with parents who are impaired?

[EKY.MTN.HUNTER]

What do you all think about this? How about the formation of a welfare supervision branch or something along the lines of that. This group of government employees would be charged with monitoring welfare recipients (make sure their trying to find employment, drug testing them ext.ext.). Yes it would cost the Government allot of money to pay for all the new employees that it would take to run the "welfare monitoring agency" BUT I think through the formation of such a group that allot of illegitimate welfare recipients (lazy, drug using bums) would be cut out of the system and people who really need welfare would be able to retain it. Just throwing an idea out there boys, we need something to prevent people from abusing our tax money. I know my idea needs allot of revision but its someting I've thought about before as a possible solution.

[Feedman]

What would "Wal-Mart" do with less people getting welfare????????????????;)

[WhiteRubi]

You would be hard pressed to find anyone on here more conservative then me. But I disagree with this statement. If you let the goverment take away kids for a failed drug test then whats next? Will you take them away for a failed drivers test too? I am not about taking kids away from parents. Now on the other hand if a parent is driving impaired or lets a kid get hurt or indangered while they are high then that is something different. And BTW, I am not a dope head.... :p HEATH



If you DON'T take the kids away, you leave them in the care of a drug user/abuser. I think the children stand a better chance by being adopted by someone that cares about them than by a mother/father cracked out of their mind.
Using drugs is illegal, driving is not.

[SmokeyBear]

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 butt, doing drugs, while I work... Can you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ????? :eek:


I've been preaching this for years!!!

[schroader]

The ones drawning wel-far dont think about my kids if i loss my job or get laid-off. The adopting of a drug users kids would be the best thing for the kids a drug users to. I dont mind to help, but it has to be someone that is willing to help themselves.

[labman]

tenntucky when you post a thread, give credit to the original source. I have seen that "urine/drug test" post a half a dozen times. At least you changed a few words to make it seem your own.

[killinmammals]

I think random hair testing would be the thing to do. Instead of mailing the deadbeats their check, have them come down and pick up their check in person. Tell them if they want their check to let you get a hair sample. If I didn't have any goals for myself, I would just get fired from work, lay around drink beer and play Wii, and get a check. But I'm not a low life. I get drug tested and think that the check grabbers should too.

[Bigmaxx]

i agree. drug users shouldnt have custody of kids. its a huge problem. taxpayers seem to have to pick up the tab. its an unfortunate fact of life.

[killinmammals]

whats it matter the original source. there are tons of threads on here that have been posted a dozen times. Anyway, my fiance was telling me tonight about somebody rolling throught the drive thru at the pharmacy in a new Denali with 22's and a stereo, but complaining about paying 4 dollars for some meds. That crap drives me nuts!!!

[WhiteRubi]

With a system as flawed as the welfare system, hundreds of improvements can be done.

I like the idea of drug screeneing but don't want tax payers to foot the bill.
You should really have to prove that you need HELP, not a check for laying around. It shouldn't fall on the government to prove you need help. You need help? PROVE IT!
Currently, people get more money for more kids, so they keep squirting them out. I say long term birth control for anybody with 2 kids or more that want to continue to get support.


I could go on all day long...:mad:

[hannibal]

I think random hair testing would be the thing to do. Instead of mailing the deadbeats their check, have them come down and pick up their check in person. Tell them if they want their check to let you get a hair sample.

Screw random...anyone that wants a check must submit a hair sample every time they go to get a check. Everyone gets a second chance. If they fail one, they still get their check, if they fail two...they are off welfare for a year, if they fail a third after that year, they are off for life. I don't mind taxpayers footing the bill for this because I bet that you would eliminate 20% of welfare recipients as it is. That money would more than pay to hire someone to do the tests.

Having children while living below the poverty line is unfortunate and can be an "accident". Having four kids while below the poverty line is either ignorance or abuse. Either way it's unacceptable.

[WhiteRubi]

I don't mind taxpayers footing the bill for this because I bet that you would eliminate 20% of welfare recipients as it is. That money would more than pay to hire someone to do the tests.



It's not the hiring of people as some of the current employees could be allocated to drug screening. It's the actual cost of the screening.

It might be cheaper to pay everybody on welfare as opposed to paying for drug screens. Obviously not everyone on welfare is on drugs, but you have to test them ALL.

[KYCatBirdHunter]

it all boils down to this, there is a certain percentage of the population that is going to contribute absolutely nothing to society. As we have it now, we are paying a very minimal amount to just forget about them (welfare). If you take these same people and drug test them, then take their welfare away, what happens? They're addicted to drugs and they need money and they don't have it. They turn into criminals of some sort, we catch them, and then we put them in prison. How much does it cost to keep someone in prison for a year? $48,000. That's a lot more than a welfare check.

So they're a bigger drain off of welfare than on it.

[tenntucky]

tenntucky when you post a thread, give credit to the original source. I have seen that "urine/drug test" post a half a dozen times. At least you changed a few words to make it seem your own.

Never ment to calim to be the source..Just like I didn't claim to be the source of vidio's I've posted. Just a thought that I agreed with that I posted for discusion. Sorry if I stole your fire there big guy..:eek:

[buckfever]

it all boils down to this, there is a certain percentage of the population that is going to contribute absolutely nothing to society. As we have it now, we are paying a very minimal amount to just forget about them (welfare). If you take these same people and drug test them, then take their welfare away, what happens? They're addicted to drugs and they need money and they don't have it. They turn into criminals of some sort, we catch them, and then we put them in prison. How much does it cost to keep someone in prison for a year? $48,000. That's a lot more than a welfare check.

So they're a bigger drain off of welfare than on it.

I can understand what you're saying, but I think that this merely rationalizes the problem and perpetuates it. I agree that our Gov't can put stipulations (i.e. drug testing) on people who accept OUR financial assistance.

IMO, I think society and gov't needs to hold people ACCOUNTABLE and RESPONSIBLE instead of just turning a blind eye to the problem and throwing money at it. It's easy to keep people on the teet claiming that they'll just turn to crime unless the Gov't continues their drug enabling financial assistance.

I don't think prison is the answer, and I certainly don't think taking their kids away immediately will solve anything. I think we'd all agree that there is no easy answer, but the $ the Gov't saves (by ceasing welfare) could instead be spent on mandatory drug treatment and job preparation programs. The only true way to eliminate their drag on society is to end their drug dependence and help these people gain the confidence to become contributing members of society.

Just my thoughts.

[hwright]

I know a little something about adoption. My wife and I have been on a waiting list since May of 06. I would love to have my little boy last week, but I am not willing to take someone's child because I don't approve of the way they live their life. If you let the government come in a take a child for drug use what will be next. The government never stops where it starts. Who's to say I get the drug addicts son and 3 or 4 years later the government doesn't like something I am doing. It doesn't matter what I am doing the government has no right to take a child away from me.

As for the drug testing I am all for it. You should not have to worry about paying for it. Make the recipient pay for the test. If they are getting 600 dollars today and tomorrow we test them then they only get 575 dollars tomorrow.

Make no mistake about it, I HATE WELFARE, and everything it stands for. It keeps people under the thumbs of the government. HEATH

[hannibal]

It doesn't matter what I am doing the government has no right to take a child away from me.

Really? If your chaining your kid in the basement feeding them only bread and beating the shit out of them you shouldn't have your kid taken away. Do you really deserve a child if your neglectful enough to use drugs?

[hwright]

Really? If your chaining your kid in the basement feeding them only bread and beating the shit out of them you shouldn't have your kid taken away. Do you really deserve a child if your neglectful enough to use drugs?

Do you eat fast food? Do you smoke? Do you drink?

Are you going to take away kids for this stuff too? If you are beating your kids then you should lose them. But what I am saying is if you can not prove that what I am doing is hurting my children, then stay out of my business. Like I said eariler, I don't use drugs and don't think anyone should. And I hate welfare of any kind. All I am saying is the Government should not be able to take kids away for a lifestyle choice. Now if the partent is buying drugs while they are staving their kids then take them away. HEATH

[hannibal]

Do you eat fast food? Do you smoke? Do you drink?

Are you going to take away kids for this stuff too? If you are beating your kids then you should lose them. But what I am saying is if you can not prove that what I am doing is hurting my children, then stay out of my business.

Yes, Yes and Yes. I eat fast food, drink and smoke(on occasion). I also don't have kids. When I am around my nephews and nieces, I do not smoke and as far as the drinking is concerned there is always one sober person around when there are children around.

Using drugs is harmful to children on many levels. It is against the law. The use of drugs by a parent shows a certain disrespect for the laws of the land. You don't think a kid will notice that. Mommy and daddy don't care about the laws why should I. There's a distinct difference between a lifestyle and committing a crime. There is always a risk of the child starting to use drugs as a direct result of the parents using them. Small children might also find their way into mommy and daddy's stash of meth. Yeah, that's not dangerous at all.

[Sand Gap Sniper]

it all boils down to this, there is a certain percentage of the population that is going to contribute absolutely nothing to society. As we have it now, we are paying a very minimal amount to just forget about them (welfare). If you take these same people and drug test them, then take their welfare away, what happens? They're addicted to drugs and they need money and they don't have it. They turn into criminals of some sort, we catch them, and then we put them in prison. How much does it cost to keep someone in prison for a year? $48,000. That's a lot more than a welfare check.

So they're a bigger drain off of welfare than on it.

Isn't using drugs against the law? Don't that make them criminals already? Doesn't a failed drug test prove that a crime has been comitted and constitute an arrest on the spot??? As for the $48,000 a year per person in prison, that's rediculous on the part of our government, it costs more to keep them alive than it does to keep me alive, there's another aspect of our government that needs reform BAD.

I also agree with the concept of making the punishment more severe each time, maybe the first time you do let them keep their check, but you throw their buttox in jail for the weekend, second time you take the check for a month and throw them in jail for 2 weeks, and then the third time you take the check for a year and give them a year in jail to ponder on what happened.. :rolleyes:

There you go, my 2 cents.

[buckfever]

Really? If your chaining your kid in the basement feeding them only bread and beating the shit out of them you shouldn't have your kid taken away. Do you really deserve a child if your neglectful enough to use drugs?

According to this link, over 10 million people over the age of 11 have tried cocaine.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001101.htm

According to the DEA, about 1 in 4 high school seniors use marijuana on a monthly basis. Not sure what that translates to in terms of numbers of adults, but even if 10% of American parents use marijuana regularly, we'd have a helluva lot of kids in gov't custody.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/marijuana.html

You may not have kids now, but given your willingness to "take" kids away from drug-using parents, you might want to think about stepping up and offering to adopt a dozen or so of those millions of drug orphans to make sure they get raised the right way. ;)