Urine Test

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:16 pm

I don't know who wrote this. It may be a way to slow down drug use.

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 states would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:54 pm

So you think it's ok for folks to abuse the welfare system?

grh · Post by **grh** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:34 pm

Would this only be for illegal drugs?

What about legal ones that we don't like? Should they have to prove they are not using my money on alcohol or tobacco products, since I don't use either? Although, come to think on it, my money isn't supposed to be able to buy those things anyways, is it?

No, wait.. come to think on it some more, aren't my tax dollars going to those tobacco farmers anyways?

I say 1 child okay. For five years, til the child hits school age. Then get your sorry ass a job. Have another one and apply for welfare on it, we take them both away and cut you off.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:22 pm

I think the point is; if one has to prove they are clean to work why shouldn't the other have to prove they are clean to get a free ride? Should people who work have to pay for people to freeload and use illegal drugs?

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:45 am

Clint, it may be a sound idea, but there is a Constitutional matter of unreasonable searches to deal with! Can it pass Constitutional muster??

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:54 am

rjwould;757678 wrote: It's sad when money is more important than liberty...
:wah: Say that next time you get a mortgage. After all, that credit card debt is a private matter between you and Capital One, right?

Look, when someone comes looking for a handout (welfare) the ones giving the money (we taxpayers) have a right to know that the money is being used for the purpose it was given.

As for liberty, welfare recipients have the liberty to go out and make it on their own. Your statement implies that we all have a right to expect gov't to provide for us. If that's the case, I'll take my check direct deposit.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:58 am

History buff;757730 wrote: Clint, it may be a sound idea, but there is a Constitutional matter of unreasonable searches to deal with! Can it pass Constitutional muster??
I see what you mean, in that simply applying for welfare isn't probable cause for checking for drugs. However, it could be made part of an agreement that must be signed. If a person wants a check, they must agree to undergo urinalysis.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:03 am

Accountable;757732 wrote: I see what you mean, in that simply applying for welfare isn't probable cause for checking for drugs. However, it could be made part of an agreement that must be signed. If a person wants a check, they must agree to undergo urinalysis.

Consent may be possible, but if they are screened for drugs and are positive and are taken off welfare, it still may be challenged in court??

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:29 am

I think that if someone needs welfare, fine. Follow that persons blood lines and tax the family members.

I'm sick and tired of working my ass off every day and being limited in what I can do for my family because of what someone else's family feels entitled to.:-6

The one I really want checked out sometime before it goes belly up is Social Security. Just how many folks are 'making do' on total disability because they can't do their former job? I know two people collecting and no one is looking at them like they have to prove a damn thing!:mad:

If you can go shopping, on vacation and feed yourself... you are not disabled. GET A JOB and quit living off me!

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:53 am

:wah: so true about disability ghr! I've seen folks who should have disability working, and folks who were on disability out mowing the lawn.

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:57 am

rjwould;757784 wrote: Some figures.

According to this site, which has figures as new as 2006, the percentage of the average taxpayers income which goes towards welfare, which includes is .093% (less than 1%).

Lets say for aguments sake you earn $50,000.00 anually. That is equal to about $465.00. Lets also say for aguments sake that the fraud you are speaking about equals 10% of the total welfare budget (which is unlikely). That means it cost this person $46.50 annually. For a person making $100,000.00 that would equal $93.00. It is worth $93.00 to me to keep my civil rights and civil liberties intact.

The real interesting part of this report in my view is here.

Oh, I misunderstood! 93$ is a small price to pay for me to keep my civil liberties. :-6

Now, on the other hand, if you insist on living off of my $93, I want to know that you are not shooting it up your vein. 93$ may not be much in the lives of folks who don't work for it. And it's not too much for me, if you really need it and don't mind proving you are putting it to good use.

But not even $1 of money that I have worked for should be spent on anyone who isn't working or at least willing to prove they are using it for good purposes only. I'd much rather spend that money on a game for my grandkids!:-6

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:32 am

grh;757791 wrote: Oh, I misunderstood! 93$ is a small price to pay for me to keep my civil liberties. :-6

Now, on the other hand, if you insist on living off of my $93, I want to know that you are not shooting it up your vein. 93$ may not be much in the lives of folks who don't work for it. And it's not too much for me, if you really need it and don't mind proving you are putting it to good use.

But not even $1 of money that I have worked for should be spent on anyone who isn't working or at least willing to prove they are using it for good purposes only. I'd much rather spend that money on a game for my grandkids!:-6

In terms of drug users, you are only looking at poor people (which is kinda stereotyping

). But most drug users aren't poor. What about the business exec that marks up the product to cover his alcohol, or cocaine habit? Aren't they living off your money too? It kinda is like an embedded sales tax ... and I am fairly certain it exceeds $93/year.

I think the idea of welfare is attacked because of the transparency of how it works more than the raw amount of money that's wasted. Maybe we should follow everyone around and see how they are spending "our" money ...

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:41 am

yaaarrrgg;757803 wrote: In terms of drug users, you are only looking at poor people (which is kinda stereotyping

). But most drug users aren't poor. What about the business exec that marks up the product to cover his alcohol, or cocaine habit? Aren't they living off your money too? It kinda is like an embedded sales tax ... and I am fairly certain it exceeds $93/year.

I think the idea of welfare is attacked because of the transparency of how it works more than the raw amount of money that's wasted. Maybe we should follow everyone around and see how they are spending "our" money ...

Oh no,no a thousand times no! That won't work at all! I choose where I spend the money that is allowed to flow into my pocket. And I don't spend it with businesses that I don't agree with on any of several issues. But if I choose to throw MY money down any toilet of my choosing, I've earned that right as surely as I went and earned that money in the first place. I did not go to work today so that you or anyone else who may feel entitled, can choose the toilet.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:46 am

rjwould;757689 wrote: Abuse occurs in everything, but that is not what I said. You think government or corporations knowing everything about your private life is worth preventing a few people from abusing the welfare system?

You give up the right to privacy when you accept any services, money, goods, credit, heath care etc. Only a hermit living in the wild on non government or private land (impossible) might be entitled to some degree of privacy.

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:47 am

rjwould;757793 wrote: You seem to be looking for a perfect world, it does not exist. We all make sacrifices and compromises in life. What happened to smaller government? One day it may be someone you love that needs assistance, you would like the government knowing what they do in privacy of their home? This is not the way to stem dangerous drug use. Every inch you give the government or corporations, the more it/they wil crave.

You don't always bother reading what other folks write, do you rj?:rolleyes:

If someone I love needs assistance, I would prefer that my tax dollars be spent on them specifically and you bet I have no problem with them peeing in a cup before they get it. If my daughters supper tonight is dependent upon me peeing... not even an issue, IMO. But then again, I don't expect for anyone to have to pee every time... random was the example... that's good enough for me.

:-6

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:06 am

grh;757807 wrote: Oh no,no a thousand times no! That won't work at all! I choose where I spend the money that is allowed to flow into my pocket. And I don't spend it with businesses that I don't agree with on any of several issues. But if I choose to throw MY money down any toilet of my choosing, I've earned that right as surely as I went and earned that money in the first place. I did not go to work today so that you or anyone else who may feel entitled, can choose the toilet.

I see your point ... I just mean, a lot of these guys are doing some drugs ... either illegal or legal. This all adds up to an embedded sales tax that's not really avoidable without completely boycotting the U.S. economy (including gas/food/clothing).

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:08 am

rjwould;757809 wrote: But, by your standards, you have the right to know. So, you may wish to have the business owner pee in a cup before you shop there.

Perhaps there should be a new law stating that weekly urine analysis is done to business owners and all executives of a corporation and it's share holders and those weekly results posted someplace obvious in the store for customers to see...

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander..

That's not a bad idea! I think politicians should have to pass breathlizers too.

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:13 am

yaaarrrgg;757835 wrote: That's not a bad idea! I think politicians should have to pass breathlizers too.

You've got my vote on this one!:D

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:19 am

rjwould;757812 wrote: Cut it anyway you want, it is intrusive. Pee away!!:)

So is having to provide proof of identity when you cash that check! Matter of fact, so is asking for proof that someone had a kid, or was injured... how dare we!:p

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:20 am

rjwould;757852 wrote: Nothing on the sacred business idea?

ummmmm... answered:rolleyes:

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:20 am

I remember seeing the other day, one of the execs James Canye (responsible for bad sub prime investments/disasters) apparently likes to get high too. How do we know he wasn't totally whacked when he made his bad decisions?????

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/for ... une/6.html

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:58 am

rjwould;757784 wrote: Some figures.

According to this site, which has figures as new as 2006, the percentage of the average taxpayers income which goes towards welfare, which includes is .093% (less than 1%).

Lets say for aguments sake you earn $50,000.00 anually. That is equal to about $465.00. Lets also say for aguments sake that the fraud you are speaking about equals 10% of the total welfare budget (which is unlikely). That means it cost this person $46.50 annually. For a person making $100,000.00 that would equal $93.00. It is worth $93.00 to me to keep my civil rights and civil liberties intact.

The real interesting part of this report in my view is here.
The person making 50K has his liberties intact. It's the parasite who gives up liberties, and he gets them back the instant he starts providing for himself.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:02 am

rjwould;757809 wrote: But, by your standards, you have the right to know. So, you may wish to have the business owner pee in a cup before you shop there.

Perhaps there should be a new law stating that weekly urine analysis is done to business owners and all executives of a corporation and it's share holders and those weekly results posted someplace obvious in the store for customers to see...

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander..
You have every right to ask the shop owner for a urine sample. If he refuses (wouldn't it be weird if he didn't?) then don't give him your money. That's your right. I think it's not too much to ask to give similar leeway to the welfare dept.

No law necessary.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:10 am

rjwould;757960 wrote: I love the repect my fellow citizens extnd to one another..
Here's respect: *Turning to a fictitious needy person*

You fall and need a hand up? You got it. If it's financial, I'll let you be a parasite off me for as long as you need it. I define need.

Here's even more respect. If you're able to work but insist on attaching yourself to the gov't tit, I'm not about to show you the same disrespect you are showing yourself by allowing you to keep yourself down. I will push and encourage you, provide training, education, and anything else you need because humans are not created to be dependent, but interdependent. I want you productive so that you can help me help the next guy that falls.

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:12 am

Accountable;757965 wrote: Here's respect: *Turning to a fictitious needy person*

You fall and need a hand up? You got it. If it's financial, I'll let you be a parasite off me for as long as you need it. I define need.

Here's even more respect. If you're able to work but insist on attaching yourself to the gov't tit, I'm not about to show you the same disrespect you are showing yourself by allowing you to keep yourself down. I will push and encourage you, provide training, education, and anything else you need because humans are not created to be dependent, but interdependent. I want you productive so that you can help me help the next guy that falls.

That's it baby! You run your ass for president!:-4

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:49 am

rjwould;757977 wrote: This comment does not surprise me somehow....

Then you know he and i have been having a 'garden affair' for years now?:sneaky::D

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:16 pm

rjwould;757971 wrote: You seem to have the attitude that everyone on welfare is there for the same reason and intention.

The fact is that the U.S. economy is considered healthy and strong when it has 5% unemployment (which only includes those that are still receiving unemployment---so the % is falsely low). The U.S. population is just over 303,240,000 (303.2 million), which means that about the best it gets on any consistent basis is over 15,000,000 (15 million) unemployed. Those are our parasites..Quite frankly, you should be ashamed using such a word to describe your fellow citizens, some of whom have served our country in combat or have sacrificed their loved ones like husbands, wives, children, parents and grandparents to it's causes.

The only question regarding welfare reform is which people are going to receive assistance, we were letting some be permanent recipients, now we are rotating them.....That is our welfare reform in a nutshell...

can't help myself, gotta pull a spot.

What is your source for these numbers?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:20 pm

grh;757807 wrote: Oh no,no a thousand times no! That won't work at all! I choose where I spend the money that is allowed to flow into my pocket. And I don't spend it with businesses that I don't agree with on any of several issues. But if I choose to throw MY money down any toilet of my choosing, I've earned that right as surely as I went and earned that money in the first place. I did not go to work today so that you or anyone else who may feel entitled, can choose the toilet.

In that case, grh, you had better stop paying taxes because you're giving your money to government who spends it as THEY see fit and I guarantee you it isn't going to good use. You're paying for free haircuts and other government perks for people who can clearly afford to pay themselves, how about them apples??

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:27 pm

rjwould;757809 wrote: But, by your standards, you have the right to know. So, you may wish to have the business owner pee in a cup before you shop there.

Perhaps there should be a new law stating that weekly urine analysis is done to business owners and all executives of a corporation and it's share holders and those weekly results posted someplace obvious in the store for customers to see...

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander..

I agree with this. Either everyone p.isses in the Dixie cup or no one does. And forget this "random" crap, that's sneaky and lowdown. While I don't care if someone is using drugs while I help pay their way, I care if they are cranking out kids! Should we have some kind of routine pregnancy testing then? Just to be sure they're not abusing the privilege?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:34 pm

Looks like California may be the first to require urine tests for those on welfare.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:39 pm

grh;757758 wrote: I think that if someone needs welfare, fine. Follow that persons blood lines and tax the family members.

I'm sick and tired of working my ass off every day and being limited in what I can do for my family because of what someone else's family feels entitled to.:-6

The one I really want checked out sometime before it goes belly up is Social Security. Just how many folks are 'making do' on total disability because they can't do their former job? I know two people collecting and no one is looking at them like they have to prove a damn thing!:mad:

If you can go shopping, on vacation and feed yourself... you are not disabled. GET A JOB and quit living off me!

Shall we turn this one around?

Your son is a wastrel junkie. You've supported him all of his life but he's gone too far and he's pulling you down into the mire.

You've given him ever last chance and still he will not help himself so you cut him loose - for his on good and for your on survival.

So he goes to the welfare - and they come to you?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:53 pm

Lon;757808 wrote: You give up the right to privacy when you accept any services, money, goods, credit, heath care etc. Only a hermit living in the wild on non government or private land (impossible) might be entitled to some degree of privacy.

if you take it to the 'n'th degree then you are perfectly correct but it is a question of degree. One is a fairly minor loss of privacy which the law attempts to limit (the data protection act was designed specifically to limit the abuse of such data) whilst the other is a direct attack on personal privacy by the one body we must be most careful of - whenever the government want to know your personal dealings they ask why, and wonder what else they could do with the data.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:59 pm

rjwould;757971 wrote: You seem to have the attitude that everyone on welfare is there for the same reason and intention.

The fact is that the U.S. economy is considered healthy and strong when it has 5% unemployment (which only includes those that are still receiving unemployment---so the % is falsely low). The U.S. population is just over 303,240,000 (303.2 million), which means that about the best it gets on any consistent basis is over 15,000,000 (15 million) unemployed. Those are our parasites..Quite frankly, you should be ashamed using such a word to describe your fellow citizens, some of whom have served our country in combat or have sacrificed their loved ones like husbands, wives, children, parents and grandparents to it's causes.

The only question regarding welfare reform is which people are going to receive assistance, we were letting some be permanent recipients, now we are rotating them.....That is our welfare reform in a nutshell...

To take this one step further, if the unemployment rate falls too much below that optimum then the government will take action to correct it. Too little unemployment is a sign that the economy is running "near capacity" and is likely to hit runaway inflation.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:03 pm

rjwould;757977 wrote: This comment does not surprise me somehow....

Look at it this way, at least he has ideas he's prepared to defend and which come from a belief that it's the best way forward for the country.

Compare that to the politicians running the place.

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:03 pm

RedGlitter;758014 wrote: In that case, grh, you had better stop paying taxes because you're giving your money to government who spends it as THEY see fit and I guarantee you it isn't going to good use. You're paying for free haircuts and other government perks for people who can clearly afford to pay themselves, how about them apples??

Well duh!:wah:

Isn't that the whole point of this thread? Us Not having control or say over where and on whom our tax dollars are being spent?

Or are you operating under the false belief that if I say how I think things should be, then that is magically going to be how they are?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:10 pm

Sheryl;758012 wrote: can't help myself, gotta pull a spot.

What is your source for these numbers?

I believe that he's slightly out - the optimum rate of unemployment is considered to be 4.5% by the Fed.

The CIA have the population as :-

301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

and the rest of the maths is close enough. Using the new figures gives :-

301,139,947 * 4.5% = 13,551,297

but current unemployment is about 5% so 15M is a good working figure.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:12 pm

rjwould;758048 wrote: You're absolutely correct and is why I decided to stop there.

Sometimes outrage needs to be expressed too.

I do - frequently :wah:

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:22 pm

I just want to add my two cents worth....

A reminder that "welfare" is supposed to be a temporary form of assistance....not a way of life.

If you don't have a job, looking for a job is your job.

"On-the-job" drug testing does not weed out all the incompatent people.......just the drug users.

Most of us don't have any problem giving aid to children and the elderly. It's aiding the folks in-between that agitates us.

grh · Post by **grh** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:27 pm

along-for-the-ride;758168 wrote: I just want to add my two cents worth....

A reminder that "welfare" is supposed to be a temporary form of assistance....not a way of life.

If you don't have a job, looking for a job is your job.

"On-the-job" drug testing does not weed out all the incompatent people.......just the drug users.

Most of us don't have any problem giving aid to children and the elderly. It's aiding the folks in-between that agitates us.

There ya go! You and AC form the ticket and i'll work on getting you on the ballot!:D

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:28 pm

rjwould;757971 wrote: You seem to have the attitude that everyone on welfare is there for the same reason and intention.Myriad reasons, and I only wish they all had the same intention, to get OFF welfare. So much for wishes.

rjwould wrote: The fact is that the U.S. economy is considered healthy and strong when it has 5% unemployment (which only includes those that are still receiving unemployment---so the % is falsely low). The U.S. population is just over 303,240,000 (303.2 million), which means that about the best it gets on any consistent basis is over 15,000,000 (15 million) unemployed. Those are our parasites..Quite frankly, you should be ashamed using such a word to describe your fellow citizens, some of whom have served our country in combat or have sacrificed their loved ones like husbands, wives, children, parents and grandparents to it's causes.Parasite is an accurate word. I've been one. Demeaning? Embarassing? Good. The parasites should feel ashamed so maybe they will work that much harder to lose the label. It's what they are, RJ. That doesn't mean that they are all deadbeats or don't deserve help. It's simply what they are.

rjwould wrote: The only question regarding welfare reform is which people are going to receive assistance, we were letting some be permanent recipients, now we are rotating them.....That is our welfare reform in a nutshell...I think you accused me before of oversimplifying. Backatcha. The only question?? Aren't you just mildly curious what put them in a situation worthy of welfare in the first place? Oh right, that's their private business. We should just pay up & shut up.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:29 pm

grh;757991 wrote: Then you know he and i have been having a 'garden affair' for years now?:sneaky::D
*pinches an ample cyber-butt.* :sneaky:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:31 pm

Bryn Mawr;758044 wrote: Look at it this way, at least he has ideas he's prepared to defend and which come from a belief that it's the best way forward for the country.

Compare that to the politicians running the place.
Thanks, Bryn! :-6

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:40 pm

Accountable;758174 wrote: Thanks, Bryn! :-6

doesn't mean I agree with you :p

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:02 pm

Bryn Mawr;758178 wrote: doesn't mean I agree with you :p
That just makes it more meaningful.

With you around I'll never have to go to the clinic myself, because I know you'll always take the ****.