urine tests and welfare

[dragonsabur]

the following was copy and pasted from an AIM conversation with a random person going around telling people his ideas (sounds strange but please read, the guy has a good point)


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




I personally think the guy has a good point.

I was wondering on what others thought of his idea (but I don't know it could just be some chain letter thing, but still)

[El Phantasamo]

I say we need that. Make sure those on hard times arent trading their food stamps for crack

[Knief]

He's working on the faulty assumption that those who do drugs are a drain on society, and can't be productive contributors. That's simply not the case. I live in Ann Arbor, so it's no surprise that I know many students and adults who do drugs (generally pot, but occasionally others) and contribute to society as well as anybody else. Yes, a lot of burn outs may also do drugs, but just because somebody does drugs does not mean that they will be a burn out. Correlation does not equal causation.

What's really ridiculous is which jobs do and don't require drug testing. I worked at Target two summers ago, and they required that I be drug tested. About 4 months later, I started working at UofM hospital, and they did not require that I be drug tested. So the guy ringing up your shoes and basketball is clean as a whistle, but the guy handling your biopsy can be trippin' balls on LSD and nobody would know. That's a different argument all together, though, and a much more intriguing question. Assuming that nobody shows up intoxicated to work, is there anybody who should be forced to never take any kind of drug because of their profession alone. Not based on moral standards of whether or not you think drugs are bad, but simply because of their life's work.

[Connors]

I think wellfare is a problem, but I also think it can be agood thing.

Wouldn't you want to keep all the money you actually work your ass off to get, instead of giving whatever percent Uncle Sam take to those too lazy to get out and get a job.?
Yes, there are some who do have troubles, and they actually try and find work, and I have no problem with them being on welfare, but its those who just sit around and collect the money and don't do a dam thing to try and get back on their own 2 feet that pisses me off.

Kneif, I agree with you completely about what you say on the matter of drugs, and the drug tests and all. You make a very good point about you havign to be drug tested to work at target, but not at the UofM hospitol.

[rynedogg]

junior, think of you know whos sister lol shes handling food lol.

[Dutton]

I completely agree with you, Kneif, about drug use and it not always interferring with jobs. However, if they are unemployed and have any sort of substance in their system...where do you think the money paying for whatever substance(s) they are using is coming from?

[tcdoersch]

The issue is not about drug users that have jobs and can earn the money they use to get their drugs. The issue is those who use their wellfare money to buy drugs and just mooch off the government and the tax payers to sustain their addiction. I don't want to have to pay for someone elses drug habbit, and I don't think many other people would either.

[Psychosis]

I feel like the concept of welfare queens, though plausible, gets overstated by us living out here in the suburbs with no idea of what urban life is really like.

[Father_Livonia]

I actually heard in school they are working on creating a law for this subject.

[abdollar]

You also have to be aware that some of the welfare rules actually prevent people from getting a job. If you work too much or make too much (usually a PT job at McDonalds is enough) you lose all your benefits; the jobs you can take are usually not secure so if you lose it, you're right back on welfare...so why risk it? Not that I think people should be working and getting welfare, but they should overlap enough to allow people to save some money so that if something happens they don't end up on welfare again.