North Dakota proposal to require welfare applicants to take drug tests (Congress, interviews)
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? What makes them free from the suspicion they allow others to be placed under?
One of the actors from comedy central asking Rick Scott to provide a urine sample back in 2011, funny. Just go to the 5 min mark if you don't want to watch the entire segment.
I think they need to test people's hair for illicit drugs as that would disqualify more people, a urine test except for THC and Benzo's is only reflective of the past week.
Conservative states like North Dakota, Wyoming and Utah should provide a safe haven from bad influences that are seen is some of the more urban, leftist states like California.
I certainly hope now with Trump and an overwhelming majority Republican house and senate that conservative common-sense states start passing more and more conservative legislation.
Conservative, yes. Intelligent, no. Drug testing all those people will cost far more money than it saves in welfare benefits. Believe it or not, most welfare recipients don't use any illegal drugs and most illicit drugs leave the body before they even picked up on a drug test if the user stops using for a few days. Plus it will cost the state more money to make their employees' spend their time administering the tests and analyzing the results. But let's not let facts get in the way of the all important conservative holier-than-thou attitude
We either agree to help those in need and the need is all that's proven or we stop helping people in need. I don't agree on fat or drug testing. It's not productive and a waste.
I do think we need to divide those out of work and those with mental illness that makes them unworkable so we can understand who actually needs help due to conditions that make them an impossible hire and those who are just suffering from the economy. One's our countries fault and one is just nature.
I also think programs for the disabled that allow them (most want to) to work with more tolerance for their illnesses. Some simply can't adhere to the standard rules of employment but they can get close and we should find a way to allow them to work without requiring the perfection. With the rise in Autism and other spectrum disorders I think this is an obvious need for the future.
Instead of concentrating on what people can control I think we should concentrate on the natural disaster of mental health when it comes to unemployment. That is if we really want more people working and less on state and federal funds.
A lot of people who are addicts do work, more than don't. Now that we have several states that are legalizing drugs I think this is a dead issue.
Once again, drug testing costs more than it saves.
So, if you're a fiscal conservative, it makes more sense not to test.
If you feel it's worth the cost, that means you are morally opposed to them using drugs and want to spend money to impose your moral judgments.
Other than alcohol, I don't use drugs or want to use them, but I don't believe the government has any legitimate right to say what people can put in their bodies.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,299 posts, read 54,213,280 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
One of the actors from comedy central asking Rick Scott to provide a urine sample back in 2011, funny. Just go to the 5 min mark if you don't want to watch the entire segment.
One of the actors from comedy central asking Rick Scott to provide a urine sample back in 2011, funny. Just go to the 5 min mark if you don't want to watch the entire segment.
Once again, drug testing costs more than it saves.
So, if you're a fiscal conservative, it makes more sense not to test.
If you feel it's worth the cost, that means you are morally opposed to them using drugs and want to spend money to impose your moral judgments.
Other than alcohol, I don't use drugs or want to use them, but I don't believe the government has any legitimate right to say what people can put in their bodies.
^THIS^ gets a rep!
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.