U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should people be required to submit to a drug screen before receiving unemployment benefits or welfa
Yes 118 65.19%
No 63 34.81%
Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-13-2010, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Boise
2,684 posts, read 6,192,790 times
Reputation: 1000

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda View Post
Take the kids away from her. They will never grow up to have any kind of a decent chance being raised by a "druggie."

Put them in a home where they can grow up to be "clean," decent and law-abiding citizens which will give them a good life they would not have otherwise have had.
Sure, because kids raised by the state end up very well rounded. If the parent is a completely hopeless case, neglecting basic life needs, that is obviously the lesser of the two evils, but an occational user, though not an ideal parent, isn't necassarily going to be a bad parent.

Besides, a child being the ward of the state, puts the cost back on the tax payer, which is where a previous poster had his issues. In his words, the kids are the problems of the mother and the six father, not his problem. Around the holidays it reminds a little bit of this quote

Quote:
If they are going to die then they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. -Scrooge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2010, 05:14 PM
 
Location: California
11,436 posts, read 17,155,408 times
Reputation: 12500
Yes drug test them all, kick them off, take their kids. It's time to stop catering to these idiots nobody forces them to take drugs, be strict and maybe a bunch of them will get off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Austin
29,546 posts, read 16,496,198 times
Reputation: 8087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
Should people be required to take drug tests to receive welfare and unemployment benefits?


*Sorry for the typo in the poll question... the last word is welfare. =)

What would be the purpose of a drug test? Would you also test for other things such as sugar? Consumption of soft drinks? Consumption of fast foods? Or is it just the things that YOU don't like?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 05:34 PM
 
Location: South East
4,209 posts, read 3,090,732 times
Reputation: 1453
Yes!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 05:41 PM
 
2,792 posts, read 3,655,784 times
Reputation: 1548
Quote:
Originally Posted by jufrbo View Post
Good point. An ETG test for alcohol is accurate up to 72 hours, I've passed with about 14 hours.

I have no personal experience for meth but have done a little research on this topic before, meth shows up for a couple days, cocaine can pass your system in an hour unless, you use constantly then is about 24 hours. Opiates including pills and heroin last around 48 hours in your system.

Marijuana is the killer as it can stick around up to 30 days, but if use is infrequent it can also pass in about 24 hours.

If your drug of choice is LSD or Mushrooms, congratulations, there is no test. Unless they want to dig through your stool a day after ingesting mushrooms, or give you a spinal tap to check for acid.
This is exactly why it's absurd to force taxpayers to pay for drug testing. You can be an alcoholic or a meth head & pass, but not if you take a puff off a joint at a party. Ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 05:46 PM
 
Location: Some Beach... Somewhere...
4,790 posts, read 4,035,261 times
Reputation: 4941
Quote:
Originally Posted by sindey View Post
This would cost alot more money to do as well, are you prepared to pay for it with a possible tax increase?
The cost would be more than offset by savings when the stoners and junkies stop getting that monthly check.

Unemployment payments are meant to tide one through while another job is found. It is not meant to provide income while smoking crack instead of finding one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 05:46 PM
 
Location: Orlando, FL
12,256 posts, read 16,211,809 times
Reputation: 6610
I'd say yes but if they fail the test then what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 05:48 PM
 
Location: Exeter, NH
5,302 posts, read 4,404,802 times
Reputation: 5698
No way. The Drug War has given the government FAR too much power already.

There's a big difference between unemployment insurance, which is an insurance system paid for by workers and employers, and welfare, which is the catch-all for every non-productive person--whether unlucky or lazy and lacking in work ethic. It's insane for insurance to start eliminating benefits bases on whether the recipient is a paragon of virtue or not. As for welfare, I'm not a big fan at all, but it already costs too much. Let it be very limited in scope and time.

Of course, due to the extreme cost imposed on the taxpayer by someone on welfare having children, I support very strong incentives for sterilization (or provable dependable birth control) of those who cannot support even themselves, since they are truly "abusing the system." After working in government, I know that for every 1 deserving person, there are 1,000 who are just using the system to line their pockets. The abuse is so rampant that I have come to believe that the government should get out of the "charity" business entirely, since it actually WANTS to give away as much taxpayer money as possible. If charity was left to religion and non-profits, abuse would be a fraction of what it is now, and there would be enough money to take care of the truly needed instead of supporting cities worth of scam artists that use their "disadvantaged" background to cash in on the "free money" our representatives are so quick to give away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 05:50 PM
 
6,745 posts, read 8,296,880 times
Reputation: 1846
Marijuana, alcohol and nicotine excluded...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 05:51 PM
 
Location: state of procrastination
3,487 posts, read 6,364,240 times
Reputation: 2889
Drug screen is actually rather cheap. Take it out of the money that would have gone to their welfare check. How is that for a solution?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top