Urine testing?

Like a lot of folks, 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 when 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 butt, 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 ??

That's a good point...

I never thought about it like that but your absolutly right.

If it makes you feel any better I'll pee in a cup.

i vote for prostate examinations instead of urine tests

If it makes you feel any better I'll pee in a cup.

Why; are you on welfare?

:lol:

Like a lot of folks, 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 when 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 butt, 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 ??

:icon16:


Touche. What made you come up with this sentiment?

If the purpose of welfare is to "help" those going through a rough patch in life, then spending the millions if not billions of dollars to urine test those on welfare is going to further disadvantage (not to mention inconvenience) the truly needy for whom the system was setup in the first place.

Your assertion only works on the assumption that those getting the welfare don't deserve it or are abusing the system.

Moving to the Political forum.

This statement was forwarded to me via email, I can't take credit for it but agree heartily in principal.

Oz, if someone is in need and qualifies, then they should get whatever assistance necessary. However the statement says, and I agree, that they should be tested for drug use to insure the handout is being used as intended.

If people choose to spend their own money on substances to have a good time, I think that's their choice. But to spend government handouts (that is, my and your money) on drugs, rather than food or electricity or children's clothing as intended, is just wrong. Having them pee in a bottle and doing a quick test at check disbursement time is a practice I'd applaud.

So, you would support millions and millions of dollars of your tax payer money being spent on collecting, testing and processing the urine of welfare recipients?

Think about the resources it would take to implement what you're proposing.

Where is this money going to come from, if not from the initial welfare budget? Depriving individuals of the welfare money that the system was created for in the first place.

Like a lot of folks, 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 when 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 butt, 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 ??

You, as an individual, have entered into private employment and have chosen to abide by the terms of employment for the renumeration you receive. You have chosen to relinquish your fourth amendment rights http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/ That is a private contract between you and your employer and you are free to leave if the conditions become unacceptable to you. No government agency may enter into any contract that violates the constitution. More info on welfare drug testing here: http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/10757res20030415.html

There you will find nuggets like:
Myth 1 - Welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs than non-welfare recipients, thereby justifying random drug testing for welfare recipients.

Fact 1 - A wealth of evidence demonstrates that welfare recipients and other adults use drugs at similar rates.

Hell yeah drivin' a Bradn New Black on Black Bentley and I'm still usin' my bridge card.

Why; are you on welfare?

:lol:

Moving to the Political forum.

This statement was forwarded to me via email, I can't take credit for it but agree heartily in principal.

Whew!!! Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it looked familiar. Another one of those chain emails forwarded all over the Internet. I believe the origin or subject matter goes back a few years. See link below which should keep the bleeding hearts happy. :rolleyes:

Click here (http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/10687prs20031218.html)

Note: Same link posted in thread above by ericn1300.

Oz: Excellent point. It would probably be expensive, unless there was some testing alternative of which I'm unaware (like, dip the sample taken at the welfare office with a detection strip and if negative the check is released). I guess it's like every other government program - a competition for resources. But yes, it would cost some money to implement.

ericn1300: Correct; since I have chosen to accept the employment conditions I have entered into this voluntarily. But to look at the flip side, haven't many that are on welfare chosen to remain so instead of becoming employed? (Insert arguments about minimum wage jobs paying less than welfare - and associated discussions - here). Fact is, there are so many individual situations, and the system has been like it is for so long that it'd be a mess to sort out (the gov't should have been sorting all along but that's another thread)

Further, for some positions it is better to have drug testing in the name of safety - say, in the case of airline pilots (reference the first comment in your sig :p ). So in certain jobs it is mandatory for the overall safety of the greater number of people. If it can be required for one industry or position that is regulated by the government, it could also be justified for programs administered/regulated by the same government. (Insert argument that FAA is Federal while welfare may not be)

And I agree with your "Fact 1"; the percentage of drug users is probably the same across many demographics, although I haven't found any data on those statistics.

Bob: Your article backs up the cost concerns of Oz's comments....quoting:

In the five weeks that the program was in effect, the drug tests were positive in only eight percent of the cases, a percentage that is consistent with drug use in the general population. Of 268 people tested, only 21 tested positive for drugs and all but three were for marijuana.

So in the cost analysis, if it increases cost by more than 10% it's not economically feasible. But again, I agree in principal - the government shouldn't pay benefits to those that are not adhering to the law. It's the same, ethically, of someone illegally getting those benefits, IMO.



Dboy23: You go. Enjoy your ride!

Here's a novel idea for you - test the toilets at the welfare office for drugs. If any are found, deny everyone's welfare until it tests clean. Use peer pressure to make them turn against the drug users.


Have any of you ever seen the results of a US government test where they tested the sewage of an entire city for drug use? Some VERY interesting results.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20380094/
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14121/1066/

What if it's the office workers who are using the drugs? The toilets will never be clean.

Wait .... I LIKE your idea. It willl save millions in welfare benefits. :evillol:

:ylsuper:

Here's a novel idea for you - test the toilets at the welfare office for drugs. If any are found, deny everyone's welfare until it tests clean. Use peer pressure to make them turn against the drug users.


Have any of you ever seen the results of a US government test where they tested the sewage of an entire city for drug use? Some VERY interesting results.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20380094/
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14121/1066/

:lol: Now THAT'S a cool idea above

Big brother in the sewers!?? Nice. That goes too far, IMO.

Here's a novel idea for you - test the toilets at the welfare office for drugs. If any are found, deny everyone's welfare until it tests clean. Use peer pressure to make them turn against the drug users.
And whould that standard apply to all jobs that require random drug testing? Just stop testing individuals and test the toilet and fire them all if it comes up positive? Wouldn't have a player left in the NFL if we did that.

So, you would support millions and millions of dollars of your tax payer money being spent on collecting, testing and processing the urine of welfare recipients?

Think about the resources it would take to implement what you're proposing.

Where is this money going to come from, if not from the initial welfare budget? Depriving individuals of the welfare money that the system was created for in the first place.

I wanna know whos getting the "big bucks" to take and test someone's piss. I bust my ass at work for just above minimum wage. Are there people being paid much more to work with piss??!!?? Basically what I'm saying is that I would gladly accept a pay raise to collect and analyze urine!!! Hell I'll do it for $1/hr. less than what the current people do that job for!! Someone on the inside...call me!! The job would probably require a degree...but how hard could it possibly be. "here, piss in this and give it back to me after you put the lid on". I'll insert a piece of paper, if it comes out blue, you're fired!! lol.

Seriously, I agree totally with the idea. Actually I believe that a lot of places are going towards using hair samples rather than urine. I heard that some places give the tests away for free...i dunno

The welfare system is extremely corrupt and mis-run.

The purpose of welfare in the beginning was to help people get back on their feet. Working in the real estate field, I look at various types of homes getting foreclosed on everyday.

It amazes me the number or people who have satellite dishes/cable boxes in their homes that you know are obvious welfare recipients. Go to the store, are they buying essential items? No, they're buying $15 steaks and beer.

It's just like Katrina victims, still to this day there are those people sitting in front of their houses saying they "can't" find jobs. They get interviewed by the news drinking their 40oz. and say they can't work because they have "injuries" the prevent them from doing so. They walk, fine, talk fine (to an extent), and can stand and sit. Where's the problem?

The welfare system is something that needs to be reorganized or just flat out cut out. It's ridiculous to continue to give free money to lazy people.

They ruin it for the ones who are hard working and using the money for honest intentions.

How can you effectively determine the needy from the lazy? I don't support giving money to lazy people, but I think it says a lot for any society when the help out the truly needy. I pay taxes and accept them as part of life and death, why can't they go to a good cause instead of bottomless Government coffers. Do you think if they eliminated the welfare system you will get a tax break? Hah!

Tax break? Yeah, don't hold your breath. :grinno:

To put things in perspective as far in the U.S. the welfare programs are not really designed for lazy, deadbeat or drug-using parents but for the children. For example in Texas the food stamp program is based on the needs of the children to make sure they get adequate food and nourishment. But there will always be abuse of the system and the children wind up suffering. And no you cannot buy beer with food stamps. :grinno:

The reformed screening processes implemented by most states can actually weed out the true needy versus lazy people. State Departments of Human Services have full access to prior employment records to include state and federal income tax returns. Another example is in Texas the parent(s) must go out on a work search and secure suitable employment or make a good faith effort or the welfare being received will be terminated.

As a side note IMO the social workers are adequately trained to detect the patterns of a drug abuser/user who applies for welfare or is on welfare since a reapplication has to be made periodically. That is where the reasonable suspicion or probable cause aspect will come into play and the applicant will have to take the drug test or face criminal charges for lying on the welfare application. I believe there is a question on these applications that ask are you on or have you ever used illegal drugs. :eek: