Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Mar 14, 2009.
Should individuals on Public Assistance be required to submit to drug test?
Why should people in Pennsylvania have to take drug tests? :laugh:
OK seriously I answered no. Here is my reasons as posted on the other thread.
Just a guess here, but something tells me that the cost in actually trying to do this in a way that would be effective would cost an awful lot of money, maybe more than the assistance itself. Lets face it you can't just ask them to bring in a urine sample and expect an accurate system. That would mean you would have to have employ some type of staff to personally test all these people on a regular bases. That just sounds like more government to me not less. Just another program that will be poorly run and ineffective in the long run. No thanks.
Come on people.. vote.
No. It is too expensive to do so, and it treats all people on public assistance as if they are criminals.
peace to youraying:
Vote early and vote often
ps - wait if you vote often then the Dems will...:smilewinkgrin:
why is it that people automatically assume that poor equals druggie. Not all poor people do drugs, and not all druggies are poor people. So when you start singling people out for drug testing better single out all of them.
You are absolutely right.
However, we never said that ALL poor people would be tested, only people who are on public financial assistance.
I know what you are going to say, "but only poor people are on PA". But the point is that you can be poor and not be on PA. Then you will NOT be tested.
Also we never said that all poor are druggies. We (and that definitely includes ME) do not want our (MINE) hard earned money (taxes) going to support someone's drug habit.
Why is it that people automatically assume that Truck driver* equals druggie. Not all truck drivers* do drugs, and not all druggies are truck drivers*..
The difference is Truck drivers*.. the ones not addicted to drugs.. are giving up money to pay people who are on PA. And SOME of those people are on drugs... wasting money on an illegal trade... money that is supposed to go to children.
* = any profession that has to take a drug test to keep their job.
Bingo. That gets to the heart of it.
Call me jaded but way too many people on Public Assistance are already taking prescription narcotics for various aches and pains.
Like all programs, this would be just another tool for the powerful to use to manupulate the weak and needy.
A better law would limit public assistance for anyone convicted of significant drug related offences (trafficing, distributing, etc).
One of the questions on the application for PA asks if a person uses illegal drugs. If that a person lies, it is considered fraud.
Testing for drugs (illegal.. not prescription... I am talking week, heroin, cocaine, etc)... is a way to insure people are not committing fraud.
The more I think about it, the more I am for it.. and will proceed with my plans to start a campaign against welfare reciepients using my tax money to buy drugs.
We will see where it goes... but something has to be done.
Many of you may live in areas where this is not the case.. and if you do, thank God everyday for where He has placed you...
But for those of us that have to deal with families who have been torn apart by illegal drug use, this is abhorant.
To use GOOD taxpayers money to give to people who use drugs.. is just wrong.
Suppose a person who wanted a joint asked you to buy it for him, would you?
Then why wouldn't you want to give him a portion of your paycheck to do so?
Not talking about prescription drugs... but ILLEGAL drugs...
And if they are truly needy.. they wouldn't be buying drugs to begin with..
If they can afford weed, they can afford a gallon of milk.
We've re-defined 'needy' in America.
"Needy" is not having what other people have.
"Needy" is not having what you want.
You'd be surprised how some of the "poor and needy" spend the money we give them.
I've had unemployed people come in for stress tests that smoke 2 to 3 packs a day.
Working people couldn't afford that!
The poor and needy in American have cell phones, flat screen TV's, and some even have cars.
The biggest need of many of our poor (other than Christ) is the wisdom to spend the money we give them correctly... but that deficit is often what got them in the position they are anyway.
I'm not sure. I'm thinking on it, though.
Normally, I don't believe in voting for something that will cost more money. However, I do believe that a person should be drug free while receiving Public Assistance. Drug tests (at least in my line of work) run about $20 to $25 for a rapid 10-panel screen. I think instead of having the taxpayers pay for this drug screen, those that are seeking the assistance should have to pay for it.
If they pay for the drug screen, they are not as likley to try & forge the screen. We have had some people try that before getting worker's compensation or job through us. A lot of times they will have a "No Temp" reading, which is an automatic red flag. That means that they tried using someone else's urine. I which case, after that occurs, the doctor's office will let us know whats going on. If they are still there, we will have them monitored while taking the test or if they leave they can take the test at their expense & also be monitored while taking it.
How about a compromise? If the person fails the test, he pays for the whole thing. If he passes, he only pays 1/2 of the cost. Further, an individual would only be required to pay (1/2) no more than twice a year - if the agy deems he should take additional tests.
The biggest difference between living on public assistance and being elected to congress is what? The payoff?
One of my regualr taxi customers works in the county welfare office. She agrees that clients should be subject to radom drug test.
Say, why not write a letter to your local newspaper and reccommend the testing, then see what kind of response you get.
This is your homework assigment. Please respond by 1 Apr 09
People always say "what about the kids, they need to eat and have money for shelter".
That is true, but if their parents are on drugs then they need to be removed from the home anyway.
So, my vote is yes, drug test them, and if they fail, stop the welfare and put the kids in foster care until the parents are clean.
The compromise you mentioned doesn't sound bad. I know there are honest people that do need assistance.
I don't read the Mobile Press Register much, because of the liberal propaganda, but it would be interesting to see everyone's reactions to the "Sound Off" column. That is assuming they even decide to post it.