NEW #1
Avatar
Pack93z Select Member
Joined: Mar 17, 2007
Posts: 13,278
Avatar
Pack93z
Select Member
Joined:Mar 17, 2007
Posts:13,278
Got an e-mail today.. and it made perfect sense.. something I guess I never really thought about but damn it, simple.


Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with
is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their A--, doing drugs, while I work . . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?


There is the cost of the test.. but it seems logical enough.

It very well might curb a drug problem.. people may say.. well what about there kids.. if they are doing drugs, don't have a job, then these parents have priority issues in the first place..

Anyway.. I thought it an interesting idea. Probably not new.. but something that never crossed my thoughts.
0
SlickVision, Methodikal, Kevin and 5 others
NEW #2
Avatar
Cheesey Preferred Member
Joined: Jul 28, 2008
Posts: 15,263
Avatar
Cheesey
Preferred Member
Joined:Jul 28, 2008
Posts:15,263
I never thought of it before. Sounds like a good idea.
Although the "druggies" would just say "I have an illness" and get away with it anyways.
0
SlickVision, Methodikal, Kevin and 5 others
NEW #3
Avatar
Rockmolder Honored Member
Joined: Sep 14, 2008
Posts: 7,611
Avatar
Rockmolder
Honored Member
Joined:Sep 14, 2008
Posts:7,611
They'd use StarCaps and still get their wellfare cheques.
0
SlickVision, Methodikal, Kevin and 5 others
NEW #4
Avatar
Yerko Senior Member
Joined: Oct 16, 2008
Posts: 2,191
Avatar
Yerko
Senior Member
Joined:Oct 16, 2008
Posts:2,191
I received this email awhile back from a friend and it seriously makes so much sense. I am with the person who originally wrote this. I have no problem helping people out. As a matter of fact, the only money I spend on myself is basically bills. The rest I always spend on others.

Here's to common sense.
0
SlickVision, Methodikal, Kevin and 5 others
NEW #5
Avatar
Formo Veteran Member
Joined: Aug 13, 2008
Posts: 5,571
Avatar
Formo
Veteran Member
Joined:Aug 13, 2008
Posts:5,571
Yup.
0
SlickVision, Methodikal, Kevin and 5 others
NEW #6
Avatar
vegOmatic Registered
Joined: Aug 11, 2008
Posts: 505
Avatar
vegOmatic
Registered
Joined:Aug 11, 2008
Posts:505
Pack93, you should know better. Wisconsin has that "Work to Welfare" or whatever it's called and people have raised a ruckus about it. People on welfare were required to show up for training and/or do menial service.

Also, those locked up in prisons, many of them would die to get and out work during the day, doing things like picking up trash on the roadside. But you can't have chain gangs any more.

Beats me why you voted for Obama if you expect people to be responsible for themselves.
0
SlickVision, Methodikal, Kevin and 5 others
NEW #7
Avatar
Zero2Cool Elite Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2006
Posts: 44,952
Avatar
Zero2Cool
Elite Member
Joined:Oct 14, 2006
Posts:44,952
Good post.
0
SlickVision, Methodikal, Kevin and 5 others
NEW #8
Avatar
Cheesey Preferred Member
Joined: Jul 28, 2008
Posts: 15,263
Avatar
Cheesey
Preferred Member
Joined:Jul 28, 2008
Posts:15,263
"vegOmatic"Pack93, you should know better. Wisconsin has that "Work to Welfare" or whatever it's called and people have raised a ruckus about it. People on welfare were required to show up for training and/or do menial service.

Also, those locked up in prisons, many of them would die to get and out work during the day, doing things like picking up trash on the roadside. But you can't have chain gangs any more.

Beats me why you voted for Obama if you expect people to be responsible for themselves.

:thumbleft:
0
SlickVision, Methodikal, Kevin and 5 others
NEW #9
Avatar
TheEngineer Registered
Joined: Aug 08, 2008
Posts: 1,621
Avatar
TheEngineer
Registered
Joined:Aug 08, 2008
Posts:1,621
Would be a lot of hassle to schedule and perform random drug tests on a significant proportion of the population. This would inevitably lead to backlogs of test results and could be a sizeable cost burden to the State.

Furthermore, it's not so much that illegal drug use will decline but masking agents will rise. When people are addicted to drugs they'll either pay for it with whatever money they have or steal the money or the drugs. To quit drugs requires a shift in attitude and ceasing payment is not the way to achieve that.
0
SlickVision, Methodikal, Kevin and 5 others
NEW #10
Avatar
Nonstopdrivel Preferred Member
Joined: Sep 14, 2008
Posts: 18,544
Avatar
Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member
Joined:Sep 14, 2008
Posts:18,544
Most people have no clue how outlandishly expensive drug tests are.
A mandatory drug screening program, laudable as it may seem in theory, would probably cost the state more than it would save.
When I was in the army, our units had mandatory drug screens every month.
Even though we all dutifully lined up to pee in the cups, it was an open secret that the army could only afford to test approximately 10 percent of the samples taken.
That was why soldiers could get by with hosting massive parties where everyone knew that smoking pot or snorting coke were the main items of entertainment, yet only one or two -- or in most cases, no one at all -- would "piss hot" afterwards.

Now imagine multiplying those expenses by several orders of magnitude.
Considering at least 43 states will have budget shortfalls this year, the proposition is simply untenable.
It's cheaper just to give the junkies their damn "entitlement checks."
0
SlickVision, Methodikal, Kevin and 5 others