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.
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.
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.?
There is already a very informative thread on this issue in the Chicago forum. Let me sum it up for you anyway: if you can look past your own superiority complex, you'll see that it helps no one to deny housing to drug addicts.
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.
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?
There is already a very informative thread on this issue in the Chicago forum. Let me sum it up for you anyway: if you can look past your own superiority complex, you'll see that it helps no one to deny housing to drug addicts.
There is already a very informative thread on this issue in the Chicago forum. Let me sum it up for you anyway: if you can look past your own superiority complex, you'll see that it helps no one to deny housing to drug addicts.
Of course not. Everyone should get free housing and do all the drugs they want.
There is already a very informative thread on this issue in the Chicago forum. Let me sum it up for you anyway: if you can look past your own superiority complex, you'll see that it helps no one to deny housing to drug addicts.
LOL So we should provide housing to people who would rather abuse drugs than handle their business. What exactly should people be responsible for in your world?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
