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

Preach it, brother.

Amen anyone wh0 benefits from OUR taxes should take a drug test before and after and randomily..if ur hopped up u dont get shyt and ur flagged the rest of your life  8-)

Why don't welfare recipients have to take drug tests to receive money from the taxes you pay? An obvious answer is that the cost of purchasing, distributing, and testing drug kits would be very high. From what I hear, they are pretty expensive. Guess who would end up paying for that?  ;D  

So testing welfare recipients would make sure the recipients aren't drug users but it would also increase the amount you have to pay...Eh.

id rather pay for example;;; 2000 per person a yr for a drug test that denies them benefits that could = 500 tho a life time PLUS there healthcare aint even touching the cost of drug test that would eliminate them gettin welfare for there lifetime long term its great for us taxpayers short term gettin it workin effeicienltly will cost say for 5 yrs but after that yeeehaw

id rather pay for example;;; 2000 per person a yr for a drug test that denies them benefits that could = 500 tho a life time PLUS there healthcare aint even touching the cost of drug test that would eliminate them gettin welfare for there lifetime long term its great for us taxpayers short term gettin it workin effeicienltly will cost say for 5 yrs but after that yeeehaw

I read this three times and still trying to figure out if you're in agreement of drugtesting or not.

Bass, this is actually not a bad idea. I, too have no problem giving people 'a hand up not hand out' and have a few ideas on the subject of Welfare benefits that some might find a little 'extreme'. We really should make Welfare/public assistance a little less convenient thereby less attractive to stay on.

I used to work for Delta Airlines as an Avionics mechanic and ended up going through a layoff in 1994 so I've been there. Had 2-3 rough years recovering from it but only had unemployment for two months while going to school for another trade. I did what was necessary to put food on the table by working two full time jobs at one point and eventually got it down to one. I didn't wait around for a job I felt was equal to my last job; I took what was there while keeping my eye open for a better job. Delivering pizzas, short order cook, convenience store clerk, etc.....

id rather pay for example;;; 2000 per person a yr for a drug test that denies them benefits that could = 500 tho a life time PLUS there healthcare aint even touching the cost of drug test that would eliminate them gettin welfare for there lifetime long term its great for us taxpayers short term gettin it workin effeicienltly will cost say for 5 yrs but after that yeeehaw

I read this three times and still trying to figure out if you're in agreement of drugtesting or not.

Bass, this is actually not a bad idea. I, too have no problem giving people 'a hand up not hand out' and have a few ideas on the subject of Welfare benefits that some might find a little 'extreme'. We really should make Welfare/public assistance a little less convenient thereby less attractive to stay on.

I used to work for Delta Airlines as an Avionics mechanic and ended up going through a layoff in 1994 so I've been there. Had 2-3 rough years recovering from it but only had unemployment for two months while going to school for another trade. I did what was necessary to put food on the table by working two full time jobs at one point and eventually got it down to one. I didn't wait around for a job I felt was equal to my last job; I took what was there while keeping my eye open for a better job. Delivering pizzas, short order cook, convenience store clerk, etc.....

YUP i agree may cost a little at first but long term it wont.Id like to see stats statewide for drug users/dealers that get welfare and amagine how  many more that dont get caught riding the system that live in luxery  >

I left my wife in 1994 but the actual divorce took about 6-8 months to finalize.  During that 6-8 months, I continued to pay for the mortgage, ALL utilities including alarm and cable, groceries, car insurance (car was paid for), basically as if I was still there.  I had moved out the day I told her I wanted a divorce.  Well, she went down, applied for and got government assistance (food stamps).  I found out and got very MAD.  I called the food stamp service and they told me since I was paying all of the above on my own instead of actually giving her the money, then she qualified for assistance.  

I left my wife in 1994 but the actual divorce took about 6-8 months to finalize. During that 6-8 months, I continued to pay for the mortgage, ALL utilities including alarm and cable, groceries, car insurance (car was paid for), basically as if I was still there. I had moved out the day I told her I wanted a divorce. Well, she went down, applied for and got government assistance (food stamps). I found out and got very MAD. I called the food stamp service and they told me since I was paying all of the above on my own instead of actually giving her the money, then she qualified for assistance.

X2, I did just about the same thing. Trying to help her until I noticed several of the checks I gave her were being cashed a a local liquor store. the judge did not take that kindly. We got the lawyers together and set it up the way it should have been.  

While some urine tests are pretty costly, there are those that are rather inexpensive and pretty darn accurate (like the ones a recruiter gives you before entering the military).  I really think this would end up saving a lot of money rather than costing more.  

they should also have to participate in comunity service.  Like street cleaning, or non profit organizations.

One way or another, your gonna pay in the long run.

Those that used their monies for illegal purposes are simpley gonna turn to theft and or other avenues to get that fix.

    Whether you get robbed at home, car broken into, your gonna pay in forms of inusurance hikes and such to compenstate for the stopped government check.

     Sorry, you just can't ween generation after generation who have had it free for so long, even their parents, grand parents are generation Welfare.    

     How come we don't spew the same rhetoric about giving foreign aide to other countries like we do about our poor.  

   Don't get me wrong, I don't think I should be responsible for others actions either, but we don't rant about taking care of other countries, so why should we scrutinize our own citizens when we don't scrutinize the countries we give more to?    

   Politcal thread.    I'll stop now before its locked.  

For me, there is never a blanket answer for these types of issues. I'm sure a drug test would rule out some people who don't want to work. I'm also sure it would rule out some people who really need help. The devil is always in the details. For example, I have known some people who occasionally smoke weed and are very productive members of society and are good employees. If they get laid off in bad times and are unable to find work, should they then be punished and not receive any benefits because they can't pass a drug test? I wouldn't want to be the person making the decision on this one.

If they get laid off in bad times and are unable to find work, should they then be punished and not receive any benefits because they can't pass a drug test?  

Yes, if they use their money to smoke weed when they get laid off, they should not be allowed to get benefits.

If they get laid off in bad times and are unable to find work, should they then be punished and not receive any benefits because they can't pass a drug test?

Yes, if they use their money to smoke weed when they get laid off, they should not be allowed to get benefits.

And what if they don't use their money to buy weed? What if they happen to smoke now and then with a friend who provides it? It isn't uncommon for someone with marijuana to share it with their buddies just as someone might share a case of beer with a friend.

If they get laid off in bad times and are unable to find work, should they then be punished and not receive any benefits because they can't pass a drug test?

Yes, if they use their money to smoke weed when they get laid off, they should not be allowed to get benefits.

And what if they don't use their money to buy weed? What if they happen to smoke now and then with a friend who provides it? It isn't uncommon for someone with marijuana to share it with their buddies just as someone might share a case of beer with a friend.

Like many other issues like this, not really a completely black and white answer. I mean when you think...they failed the drug test, first image is this dude with a crack pipe, or shooting heroin. While I do not condone smoking weed, I also would not throw someone who occasionally partakes to the wolves.

You have to be careful with the slippery slope though. Your first thought is..well they are spending all their money on drugs, they don't get nothing. Well what about the couple whose roof is falling in, can't feed their kids, but everyone has designer jeans, name brand shoes and clothes, etc? It is just a tough call.

BTW, personally I would be for drug tests. Though I would not be for immediate blanket repercussions. There are always room for abuse.  

If they get laid off in bad times and are unable to find work, should they then be punished and not receive any benefits because they can't pass a drug test?

Yes, if they use their money to smoke weed when they get laid off, they should not be allowed to get benefits.

And what if they don't use their money to buy weed? What if they happen to smoke now and then with a friend who provides it? It isn't uncommon for someone with marijuana to share it with their buddies just as someone might share a case of beer with a friend.

I get what you are saying but if they don't have a job they shouldn't be smoking weed with friends. It may be a little strict, but if you are giving money to people I believe your really need to make sure they are seriously trying to get a job and not wasting money. Plus, I don't think it really matters if they don't buy the weed because it is still illegal to smoke it. They shouldn't be allowed to get government money if they are breaking the law (whether its a good law or not).

For me, there is never a blanket answer for these types of issues. I'm sure a drug test would rule out some people who don't want to work. I'm also sure it would rule out some people who really need help. The devil is always in the details. For example, I have known some people who occasionally smoke weed and are very productive members of society and are good employees. If they get laid off in bad times and are unable to find work, should they then be punished and not receive any benefits because they can't pass a drug test? I wouldn't want to be the person making the decision on this one.

It has been proven smokin weed slows you down .Doing the other stuff does mental things to ya if u dont get it when u need it. I refuse to work around ppl who smoke weed do drugs or drink on the job its serious business .i dont want my doctor ,lawyer,cable guy,tire tech,grocery bagger, doin anything for me if they are under the influance simple as that

For me, there is never a blanket answer for these types of issues. I'm sure a drug test would rule out some people who don't want to work. I'm also sure it would rule out some people who really need help. The devil is always in the details. For example, I have known some people who occasionally smoke weed and are very productive members of society and are good employees. If they get laid off in bad times and are unable to find work, should they then be punished and not receive any benefits because they can't pass a drug test? I wouldn't want to be the person making the decision on this one.

It has been proven smokin weed slows you down .Doing the other stuff does mental things to ya if u dont get it when u need it. I refuse to work around ppl who smoke weed do drugs or drink on the job its serious business .i dont want my doctor ,lawyer,cable guy,tire tech,grocery bagger, doin anything for me if they are under the influance simple as that

I don't either. I'm not talking about people who drink or smoke on the job.

BTW, I don't smoke weed nor am I giving my stamp of approval to drug use. I'm just saying you can't automatically categorize pot smokers as derelicts of society without looking at other attributes of their lives as well.

For me, there is never a blanket answer for these types of issues. I'm sure a drug test would rule out some people who don't want to work. I'm also sure it would rule out some people who really need help. The devil is always in the details. For example, I have known some people who occasionally smoke weed and are very productive members of society and are good employees. If they get laid off in bad times and are unable to find work, should they then be punished and not receive any benefits because they can't pass a drug test? I wouldn't want to be the person making the decision on this one.

It has been proven smokin weed slows you down .Doing the other stuff does mental things to ya if u dont get it when u need it. I refuse to work around ppl who smoke weed do drugs or drink on the job its serious business .i dont want my doctor ,lawyer,cable guy,tire tech,grocery bagger, doin anything for me if they are under the influance simple as that

I don't either. I'm not talking about people who drink or smoke on the job.

BTW, I don't smoke weed nor am I giving my stamp of approval to drug use. I'm just saying you can't automatically categorize pot smokers as derelicts of society without looking at other attributes of their lives as well.

If they are using money or time to do something illegal while they are unemployed and receiving government benefits then they are derelicts of society, regardless of what illegal activity it is.

Part of it is also the fact that they are using government money in a wasteful manner. I would also call people derelicts if they were being wasteful (I saw a family buy 16 cases of soda--name brand no less--at Walmart with food stamps) and that includes buying drugs (any recreational drugs)

Dominion Dan stated:

If they are using money or time to do something illegal while they are unemployed and receiving government benefits then they are derelicts of society, regardless of what illegal activity it is.

Nice.  In your world not only can the unemployed not smoke weed, but they can't drive 5 mph over the speed limit, must not ever forget to wear their seat belts, can't have tread on their tires that is under the minimum acceptable limit, etc. or they are derelicts of society.  

 We're just going to have to agree to disagree.  

I saw a family buy 16 cases of soda--name brand no less--at Walmart with food stamps

Coke Addicts!

(sorry Dan, couldn't help it.)

Dominion Dan stated:

If they are using money or time to do something illegal while they are unemployed and receiving government benefits then they are derelicts of society, regardless of what illegal activity it is.

Nice. In your world not only can the unemployed not smoke weed, but they can't drive 5 mph over the speed limit, must not ever forget to wear their seat belts, can't have tread on their tires that is under the minimum acceptable limit, etc. or they are derelicts of society.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Now you're just being senile  ;D

Those are traffic offenses, not criminal offenses. I am not talking about those. I am talking about consciously committing criminal acts.

Dominion Dan stated:

If they are using money or time to do something illegal while they are unemployed and receiving government benefits then they are derelicts of society, regardless of what illegal activity it is.

Nice. In your world not only can the unemployed not smoke weed, but they can't drive 5 mph over the speed limit, must not ever forget to wear their seat belts, can't have tread on their tires that is under the minimum acceptable limit, etc. or they are derelicts of society.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Now you're just being senile ;D

Those are traffic offenses, not criminal offenses. I am not talking about those. I am talking about consciously committing criminal acts.

Well, you did say any illegal activity.    

Of course, I'm a college graduate, make a good salary, provide for my family, and I don't take drugs so it's Ok if I put someone else's life on the line while I'm speeding ever so slightly.  But God forbid that some guy is a college graduate, makes a good salary, provides for his family, and takes a toke now and then.  If he loses his job he's a derelict.  

Whoops, sorry.  I did say we would have to agree to disagree.  Look, I do get you guys point and in the whole scheme of things it ticks me off when someone spends money on partying when they are living off government benefits derived from tax payers.  But there are always exceptions to the rule.  

I just think there are standards that must be met to get government money. One would be refraining from criminal activities. The other is that the person must be searching for employment.

That's all.

I'm not saying they are derelicts because they lose their job and smoke. I am saying they are derelicts if theye they waste government money to get high or they are breaking the rules set by the government that is supporting them...It's like what parents say, "as long as you live in my house, you obey my rules"

I don't care if someone is a good person who smokes. I DO care when they smoke while they are receiving government money. For the unlucky guy who occasionally smokes and loses his job the answer is simple, just stop smoking.