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.
If you aren't drawing welfare, you'd have nothing to worry about.
This thread was about people drawing welfare.
I wonder why the topic of welfare recipients being tested hit a nerve with you ?
So you don't care about civil rights to privacy for welfare recipients? I'm not a welfare recipient myself, I just think drug tests are a disgusting invasion of privacy. Plus they stem from drug laws themselves, which are fascist.
Additionally, I care about not spending taxpayer money on lab tests for every single welfare recipient. Everyone should at least agree with me on this point.
So you don't care about civil rights to privacy for welfare recipients? I'm not a welfare recipient myself, I just think drug tests are a disgusting invasion of privacy. Plus they stem from drug laws themselves, which are fascist.
Additionally, I care about not spending taxpayer money on lab tests for every single welfare recipient. Everyone should at least agree with me on this point.
A person applying for welfare is also required to show bank balance statements and pay stubs and rent receipts. For a person not applying for welfare, it would be an invasion of privacy for, say, the drivers license bureau to require you to disclose that information. A condition of eligibility for public funds is a concession of some privacy.
I have just found some new information, which has changed my mind about this. In Michigan, when they drug tested for welfare eligibility, only 10% tested positive for any drug, and only 3% positive for hard drugs. The cost of the drug tests averaged $42, which means it cost the state $420 to weed out each pothead, and $1400 to find each hard drug user. http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/...on-eligibility
Admittedly, there would have been some number of drug users who did not apply for benefits, because they knew they would not pass the drug test. So the mere perception would carry much of the desired result---just have everyone pee in a cup, and then don't waste money testing it. Druggies would not show up.
Admittedly, there would have been some number of drug users who did not apply for benefits, because they knew they would not pass the drug test. So the mere perception would carry much of the desired result---just have everyone pee in a cup, and then don't waste money testing it. Druggies would not show up.
No, but they would find some poor schlupp to live with who gets welfare for her and her kids.
It's unbelievable the amount of men who mooch off welfare women. They live with them but off the books because the women would not get welfare if the state knew those men were there.
If the women were found out that they were supporting men in their house while they are on welfare, they would be kicked off the rolls.
No, but they would find some poor schlupp to live with who gets welfare for her and her kids.
It's unbelievable the amount of men who mooch off welfare women. They live with them but off the books because the women would not get welfare if the state knew those men were there.
If the women were found out that they were supporting men in their house while they are on welfare, they would be kicked off the rolls.
The women would get more welfare if the state knew the men were there. I find it amusing that people think that men can not be in the household for a woman to get public assistance.
What they would do, would be find someone else to pee for them.
The women would get more welfare if the state knew the men were there. I find it amusing that people think that men can not be in the household for a woman to get public assistance.
What they would do, would be find someone else to pee for them.
The woman gets in trouble if the man living with her is the father of one of her children that she gets welfare for.
I don't think people who apply for public assistance need to be drug tested prior to receiving the checks or food stamp card.
If you believe they shouldn't be given benefits because they will buy illegal drugs, then what about the thieves who apply for welfare? What about the people who conceal stolen property? It would be discriminating against the people who tested positive and profiling them. Now, if someone had been arrested for possession of illicit drugs or distribution of drugs, that is a different story. Or, people who have been convicted of felony charges of whatever criteria the state deems to use; that seems like a better platform, if there would ever be a need to try to keep people off welfare. The state department could use their criminal history as a way to deny them, but pretend something else (much the way employers do on job applications) is the reason.
Please provide source information for these assertions.
easy, if this wasnt the case, than married couples wouldnt be able to receive public assistance, and of course they can.
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.
