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.
Why not just get the eff off of the backs of the poor??? Just because some of them collect some form of benefits, doesn't justify invading their privacy. As one poster pointed out, they could purchase clean urine anyhow, and avoid detection of illegal drugs in their urine.
Besides, ALL Americans are entitled to their privacy, regardless of the fact that some may be collecting benefits. And a policy like drug testing benefit recipients, would bring this country closer to the police state, that it's been drifting towards since the Bush years.
Also, I think that this excessive concern with those collecting benefits, smacks of thinly-veiled racism. I say this, because people of color, make-up a disproportionate number, of those who collect welfare and UI
benefits.
well what an argument you have Bush somehow gets the blame for everything so I feel this is a real waste of my time.
first the the majority of people collecting benefits is not "persons of color"
second collecting these benefits is not a entitlement although your LBJ great society has been interpreted that it is .
third when I have to go out and work why should the money the govt takes from me to give to your "less fortunate" be used to allow them to buy recreational drugs?
fourth if you want privacy go out and get a job and spend your money however you want
third when I have to go out and work why should the money the govt takes from me to give to your "less fortunate" be used to allow them to buy recreational drugs?
So would you also prohibit them from spending money on other forms of recreation?
well what an argument you have Bush somehow gets the blame for everything so I feel this is a real waste of my time.
first the the majority of people collecting benefits is not "persons of color"
second collecting these benefits is not a entitlement although your LBJ great society has been interpreted that it is .
third when I have to go out and work why should the money the govt takes from me to give to your "less fortunate" be used to allow them to buy recreational drugs?
fourth if you want privacy go out and get a job and spend your money however you want
First of all, watch your grammar! Second of all, your tax dollars may go towards things that you don't want it to. But NOBODY in America, gets to choose how their tax dollars are spent.
Thirdly, you can't assume that most people receiving benefits, are using recreational drugs. Even if they were, they could still purchase clean urine, and by-pass dectection for illegal drugs.
And what about the person on welfare and UI benefits, who wants to drink alcohol? Alcohol is a drug too, even though it's not illegal. So should we prevent those on welfare or UI benefits, from buying a beer, or having a glass of wine with dinner??
Lastly, the welfare and unemployment benefit rolls, are DISPROPORTIONATELY filled with minorities, even if they don't make up the majority of welfare and UI recipients, in raw numbers. And may I ad, that ALL Americans are entitled to their right to personal privacy, whether they have jobs or not.
Yes, but only if the same testing would apply to police, fireman, all public workers, and especially politicians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
I think it does except for politicians..Hmmm I wonder why politicians are exempt?
Cops and fireman do usually have to be tested, but not public workers... it depends on the city and specific job title, so it's not always a requirement. I've worked almost entirely in city/county jobs, and have never been subjected to a drug test.
~ It's OK for my employer to mandate I get a blood test
That's because an employer is responsible for their employees, and held liable if anything goes wrong... if you steal they suffer financial loss, if you crash while making a delivery their insurance goes up, if a customer is attacked they get sued, etc. THEY have something at stake, which is why some (not all) employers choose to drug test their workers.
Quote:
~ It's OK for the police to stop me to see if I've been drinking and if I refuse I am forced to have a blood sample taken
And that is because you're putting other people's lives at risk... so this and the above example aren't directly related to receiving welfare, as they're essentially hurting nobody if they choose to waste their money. It might chap your butt a little, which I do understand, but in reality they only hurt themselves (drug-related violent crimes aside). I agree with cracking down on welfare abusers, but conducting nationwide drug testing is ineffective, expensive, and an invasion of privacy. Like it or not, people on welfare do still have constitutional rights - and they too are subject to testing in these scenarios you've mentioned.
P.S. As it's already been mentioned, there are a myriad of ways to pass drug tests... so if people going on welfare know they'll be tested, it's unlikely they'd just say "okay" and pray it magically comes out clean. Instead they'll use any number of methods to pass, and we have thus accomplished nothing.
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.
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.
