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 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.
I do understand where you are attempting to come from, but, lets look at it this way. Not only are you hurting the drug user.. if you do find one, but you are hurting the children, who you already feel have a harder chance at making it.
Also a lot of the people that are in public housing are not there because of the drugs. You could remove the drugs from the planet, and majority would still remain there.
Also on a side note, they don't get free cable in CHA. They also don't get free electric or gas.
Do you only complain about persons who cannot afford to hire entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory and fill our corporate welfare forms in triplicate?
Oh, so in other words you were incapable of comprehending my post..let me make it simple for you!!
reconmark
Senior Member
Status: "Trying to take the right path." Edit (set 4 months ago) Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Metro-Detroit area
2,222 posts, read 857,185 times
Reputation: 1170
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfr69
Like I said, a big part of it is principal. I'd happily pay for drug testing over some physically able dude who has a sidekick and an eldorado with 2k rims getting my money to sit around smoking blunts and playing playstation all day.
And before you call me a racist, I smoke blunts and play playstation with some of these dudes that live in my buddies apt complex, difference is I own my home and pay for it, own my car and pay for it, work 50 hours a week and pay my own way.
Really, you have seen these dudes with Eldorados and $2000.00 rims??
Leave those blunts alone, I think your'e seeing too many scenes from:
So my rhetorical statement was that, I don't believe there are a legion of poor people riding around in Cadillac Eldorados with $2000.00 rims on them in the ghetto.
So exactly where do you get "complaining" from???..lol
Everyone in the military takes one when they first enlist. I didn't take a single one past my enlistment date.
What we are talking about with welfare is continual and steady testing.
Now if you wanted to test only those who are signing up for welfare at the first sign up, then that would be reasonable. Its the steady, monthly random testing that isn't cost effective.
When did you get out?
I worked for DoD 2000 thru 2007 and they had random drug test for everybody.
How about some credible links to back up your assertions here.
Fine, give the government $70 + an hour of someone's labor and overhead to match at least $100 for each person you want tested.
Personally, I'm for mandatory birth control for all people on assistance, but I'm not going to rant and make demands on an internet board.
Since you complain about cherry picking, how about your own?
What are you actively doing to change the law other than rant, rave and stereotype on CD?
I'll bet the answer is a big, fat, nothing.
You are funny. You ask someone else for crdible links yet, you make a claim "$70 + an hour of someone's labor and overhead to match at least $100 for each person you want tested." with no credible back it up.
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.
For you it may be "off place" but for the rest of us .. it's not so much about cost .. it's about Personal Responsibility!
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.
For you it may be "off place" but for the rest of us .. it's not so much about cost .. it's about Personal Responsibility!
You can buy drug tests for like $3 on ebay. The gov buys in bulk meaning even lower prices. I don't see where you get $70 to drug test someone.
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.
For you it may be "off place" but for the rest of us .. it's not so much about cost .. it's about Personal Responsibility!
Who paid for the analysis?
I guess you missed the "Random" testing part. You don't have to test everyone every month. If you find one person and you kick them out of their gov't housing, stop their welfare check etc. the word gets out pretty fast. Next week you do it again. It won't take long.
Oh, so in other words you were incapable of comprehending my post..let me make it simple for you!!
reconmark
Senior Member
Status: "Trying to take the right path." Edit (set 4 months ago) Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Metro-Detroit area
2,222 posts, read 857,185 times
Reputation: 1170
Really, you have seen these dudes with Eldorados and $2000.00 rims??
Leave those blunts alone, I think your'e seeing too many scenes from:
So my rhetorical statement was that, I don't believe there are a legion of poor people riding around in Cadillac Eldorados with $2000.00 rims on them in the ghetto.
So exactly where do you get "complaining" from???..lol
Why resort to forms of special pleading with your selective moral outrage?
Recently it was proposed that anyone over 18 living in public housing in Chicago would have to be drug tested.
Of course people came out saying "oh your picking on the poor" , "that's not fair", etc.
How come me a contributing working member of society who pays my own way can be drug tested for a job but CHA residents who live off you and I's dime can't be tested because its an invasion of their privacy?
If I complained the gov would say you don't have to work there go find a place that doesn't drug test if you dont like it.
What's wrong with saying to CHA residents, you don't like being drug tested pay your own way and pay for your own housing and you won't have to be.
Personally I would even be reasonable enough as to say up to 6 months no test as sometimes people just need a legup but majority of public housing residents in Chicago live their entire lives in public housing, it's not a legup its a lifestyle and choice paid for by you and I.
Because private companies are allowed to make passing a drug-test a term of your employment. Really, your comparison of the government and private employers is nonsensical.
How about mandating drug-testing for all recipients of public roadways. Or, all drivers before they get a license?
Bet you don't like that idea, do you, hypocrite? Neither do I -- just pointing out your hypocrisy -- and my comparison of one public service to another is infinitely more apt than your comparison of private companies to public services.
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.
