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.
I would think you would do it randomly. That way your not doing thousands of tests each month but and residents can't play a game of doing drugs at the beginning of the month knowing they wont get tesed until the end and drugs will beo ut of their system.
Just the knowledge that a test could come at anytime should kep some from using drugs.
I'm surprised at the opposition to this idea and also people thinking this is so outragious. If this is an invasion of privacy for "poor people" why is it not an invasion of privacy for me to have to take a drug test for a job?
Why is one okay and the other is not? Especially when the group you think its not okay for is the one working the system and getting free housing on your dime for life while they do drugs and soak up every other gov program free food, childcare, etc.
Well then whats the point, then you are catching even less, and there are ways to pass a random drug screen. A condom filled with others urine is good enough for that, or didn't you know?
Drug screens are a waste of money.
What if you catch no one and you test 100 people, what have you done then, wasted more tax payer money. Its an understandable sentiment, but its a waste of money.
I did a cost vs. reward analysis on doing this for welfare recipients nationwide.
You won't save any money by doing it. It costs about 70 dollars a month to truly test someone, you want to do that with every person in public housing, monthly? The costs would be astronomical.
I understand your sentiment, but its off place.
That is always the gov't excuse, "it would cost etc.".
I say B.S. The people doing the testing are Already on the gov't payroll. You don't have to hire any additional people.
Well, private sector...they can do what they want. Don't like it? Don't work there. What happened to all the rants of Gov't is too involved in private business' etc., etc.?
I understand your rant. But that's the rub.
If you're living off the taxpayer dime, then drug testing should be allowed. Why this common sense approach is beyond you further validates the theory that liberalism is a mental disorder.
I worked for Uncle Sam and was randomly tested all the time.
I don't understand your rant.
What does being tested by your company have anything to do with the gov't?
If it's an invasion of privacy to test people living in public housing why is it not an invasion of privacy for me to be tested for a job?
Also, take the private sector element out of it. Why wont the gov test people who want you and I to pay for their housing but the gov in your instance who was your employer is all good with testing you for your job?
I will agree if your job involves public safety such as driving a bus, flying a plane, etc by all means test but some paper pusher working in an office shoudl't be tested if public housing residents cant be tested for privacy reasons
Well then whats the point, then you are catching even less, and there are ways to pass a random drug screen. A condom filled with others urine is good enough for that, or didn't you know?
Drug screens are a waste of money.
What if you catch no one and you test 100 people, what have you done then, wasted more tax payer money. Its an understandable sentiment, but its a waste of money.
I totally disagree. if you do random drug testing and when someone is found to be using drugs and you evict them and take away their checks and food stamps, the word gets out pretty fast.
You do a lot of testing in the beginning then after you weed out some, the test don't have to be given as often.
If it's an invasion of privacy to test people living in public housing why is it not an invasion of privacy for me to be tested for a job?
Also, take the private sector element out of it. Why wont the gov test people who want you and I to pay for their housing but the gov in your instance who was your employer is all good with testing you for your job?
But, why exactly do you want them to be tested is what I am curious about? Do you think that if they are tested, most people will be kicked out and therefore less will be spent on these types of programs?
If it's an invasion of privacy to test people living in public housing why is it not an invasion of privacy for me to be tested for a job?
Also, take the private sector element out of it. Why wont the gov test people who want you and I to pay for their housing but the gov in your instance who was your employer is all good with testing you for your job?
You are misunderstanding my position. I am FOR random drug testing. My comment was associated with what I read. I don't understand what it meant.
Well then whats the point, then you are catching even less, and there are ways to pass a random drug screen. A condom filled with others urine is good enough for that, or didn't you know?
Drug screens are a waste of money.
What if you catch no one and you test 100 people, what have you done then, wasted more tax payer money. Its an understandable sentiment, but its a waste of money.
Typical liberal rant. We can't do it! It would cost money! Even though the money saved would be tenfold. You people have an entirely different mindset than those who really THINK.
But, why exactly do you want them to be tested is what I am curious about? Do you think that if they are tested, most people will be kicked out and therefore less will be spent on these types of programs?
I understand growing up in public housing you already have the deck stacked against you in terms of poor schools, maybe uninvolved parents, etc however some people make it out and strive so why can't others.
Why shoudl they be tested? Because why should you and I pay our tax dollars for someone to live for free if they are doing drugs. If they stopped doing drugs it's much more likely they woudln't need to live off taxpayers dime.
Personally it's about principal to me but I also think money woudl be saved as well. If you allow people do do drugs, live free, free cable, free food, people will take advantage of it. If you dont people will have to go out and do for themselves.\
This is a totally different scenario but same concept. In the netherlands they used to have 7 year unemployment. Guess how long it took people to find a job on average? 6 years and 6 months. They dropped unemployment to 5 years and guess how long it took to find a job, 4 years 6 months.
Whatever you allow people to get away with they will.
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.
