Urine test for welfare?

Makes sense to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e-mail

> 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? Pass this along if you
>! ; agr ee or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it
> along, though . . Something has to change in this country --
> and soon!

---

People just love taking the piss.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e-mail

>
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

---

No I can't imagine that. Please show me some facts about it mr.spam-email. And what if everyone had to do a urine test then. What would get better and why would it get better? Is people addicted to marijuana, cocaine or such better then someone addicted to alcohol?

How much more would it cost to administer the tests and would that cost be offset by the reduction of benefits paid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

How much more would it cost to administer the tests and would that cost be offset by the reduction of benefits paid?

---

Good question but it's the principle of the whole thing loike.

I think moms on welfare should be required to be on long-term birth control (the one shot deal for those that can take it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

How much more would it cost to administer the tests and would that cost be offset by the reduction of benefits paid?

---

Good question but it's the principle of the whole thing loike.

---

So if it costs more of your "hard earned tax dollars" to add drug testing you won't care because the principle will be upheld?

The recent brouhaha about drugs in baseball raises some interesting points as well...they're upset because the drug use enhanced (at least potentially) performance, so should welfare mothers who take meth (and therefore speed up) be overlooked because they are potentially more productive?

More productive at what? Certainly not finding a job and getting off of welfare.

Drug tests aren't even that costly these days with their use becoming so standard in so many industries. The state/county (in Texas) use them for all parolees and those put on probation, and yes, they test for alcohol as well in cases where the offense was in any way related to drugs or alcohol.

I would gladly pay a bit more per person on welfare if we could eliminate those that abuse the system, thus significantly dropping the cost of the entire program.

yes, there needs to be restrictions on how long you can collect welfare for. Once the time is up the people should be forced to do community service or something for their check. People need to do something to earn the money or they wont care at all how they spend it.

or just get rid of the whole system because its so screwed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Good question but it's the principle of the whole thing loike.

---

So if it costs more of your "hard earned tax dollars" to add drug testing you won't care because the principle will be upheld?

The recent brouhaha about drugs in baseball raises some interesting points as well...they're upset because the drug use enhanced (at least potentially) performance, so should welfare mothers who take meth (and therefore speed up) be overlooked because they are potentially more productive?

---

I didn't say I agreed.

One is the principle of paying someone taxpayer money that smokes it up.

I'm talking about the principle behind Skiz's post.

You are talking logistics which I get also. In that case, the taxpayer bottom line can be more adversely affected than ya just pay the crack addict with no testing.

I think you like being adversarial stuff for no reason.

If I thought your post was donkey nuts I would've called it a dumb question.:ermm:

Whenever you start putting qualifications on benefits, you have to ask the question, are you ok with the people who fail starving to death in your country?
Personally i accept that whatever system you use it will be flawed, but i'm willing to pay the taxes that guarantee that anyone will be cared for. Its annoying that money is being spent on wasters, but i prefer it to the alternative.