Someone came up with a bright idea that should be implemented forthwith!

It goes like this.

Since many workers have to pass a drug test in order to work, and since their taxes pay for various entitlements, [B]the recipents of those entitlements should have to pass regular drug tests to get their checks.

That would be fair wouldn't it?

It is a good idea, I believe that some provinces in Canada, possibly Ontario, require drug testing for welfare recipients. Many bleeding heart liberals oppose this because it supposedly takes away their dignity, but I say who cares. I work hard and I don't want my tax dollars going to people who contribute nothing to society.

Someone came up with a bright idea that should be implemented forthwith!

It goes like this.

Since many workers have to pass a drug test in order to work, and since their taxes pay for various entitlements, [B]the recipents of those entitlements should have to pass regular drug tests to get their checks.

That would be fair wouldn't it?

Not really a great idea but another layer on bureaucracy. Workers pass a drug test for safety reasons, there is no safe or unsafe practices associated with a deposit to a bank account or collection of your mail.

Why don't you just propose that everyone who receives something from the government be branded with a mark so we will all know them, then we will know who these second class citizens are and can act accordingly

If your talking welfare then yes many states already do that when there is suspect of drug use going on. As far as SSI I don't think that would work because they have earned their benefit.

Not the same . There is no right to privacy in the case of screening for employment. As Clete says ,it is an issue of safety at a minimum.

But what you propose smacks of a 14th amendment violation . We all receive some sort of "benefit " or "entitlement " from the Federal Government . If it applies to a selected group only it violates the 'equal protection' clause.

If it applies to a selected group only it violates the 'equal protection' clause.Hello tom:

Jeez. That sounded positively liberal.

excon

Frankly, I don't give a DAMN about the "dignity" of the people receiving welfare checks.

Maybe if they were more humiliated, they'd work harder to get Off welfare.

Maybe if they had to stand in a separate line at the grocery store to pay with food stamps and people could SEE that they were receiving government aid, maybe others wouldn't be so inclined to make ilfe choices that would put them in the "welfare" category.

And if your neighbors could see you lose your "dignity", they'd be disgusted with your new clothes or new car or new cell phone, or whatever--they'd be less inclined to help you maintain a lifestyle of ease.

I'm ALL for drug testing to receive welfare. I'm ALSO for mandatory birth control during the time you receive welfare--or the complete loss of welfare benefits if you get pregnant/get a girl pregnant and the pregnancy ends with parenting instead of adoption.

You don't have the RIGHT to a good place to live, food in your belly, clothes on your back, and as many kids as you want.

You have the right to PURSUE that--but no one OWES you those things.

Synn

Correct ;but the problem is in the programs themselves.

Yup. I agree.

Get rid of ALL of those programs, with the exception of those that help the elderly that TRULY need it and those that help the mentally ill.

Make it so that you have to have a high school diploma or GED to receive any kind of government aid.

While there are some people out there that really do need a hand up---most of them are just taking a hand OUT, and I am not okay with that.

Wouldn't the cost of drug testing people be astronomical? Are they going to come to your house or do you go to them? Are they going to be random or a set date?

Plus most hard drugs are out of your system pretty quick. So you just hold out until after the test.

Then you could always get synthetic urine they sell it on a website. It comes in a pouch with a little hand heater that heats the synthetic urine to 98.6. I've been drug tested for jobs and not once did someone watch me pee. Plus you can get a drink at GNC for 40 bucks that will mask anything and it works.

This is a pointless cause.

Is this standard in the US? I've never once been tested for drugs for any job.

NK it's not standard but it happens a lot. I went for a job at Panasonic while I was still in school and I had to take a drug test. But since then all my jobs have been in IT or Programming and not once have I ever had to take a drug test.

I personally think that unless the job involves danger to others (operating a moving vehicle, working with fire, assembly lines, or where a lapse could get someone killed), then it's none of their business whether I could pass a drug test.

For the record, I haven't done ANY drugs in over 15 years (since I was playing around in college), so it has nothing to do with my personal ability to pass the test. I just don't understand why what you do on your own time has anything to do with the company---ESPECIALLY when they're not testing for alcohol along with everything else.

Is this standard in the US? I've never once been tested for drugs for any job.

You all know I am in healthcare, and Canadian, and I have never had a drug test with the Canadian Red Cross or anywhere else I've worked. However, my husband who worked in the States for many years as an industrial representative had to be tested.

Tick

Someone came up with a bright idea that should be implemented forthwith!

It goes like this.

Since many workers have to pass a drug test in order to work, and since their taxes pay for various entitlements, [B]the recipents of those entitlements should have to pass regular drug tests to get their checks.

That would be fair wouldn't it?

Galveston - I really think that all the folks collecting SS Disability should be tested on a yearly basis (or even every other year) to see if they are STILL disabled. And if they are not as disabled as they claim to be to dump them off the gravy train. It really burns me up that once a person gets on disability they're approved for LIFE!! Very few people are dumped off this program. Very few. I am so tired of seeing these disability cheats here in Ohio I could scream. Just about everyone up here is on disability for being obese, for mental problems that are exaggerated, for having back problems that don't stop them from doing heavy yard work or climbing up a ladder so quick it would make a normal person look slow, etc. Also, make the disabled person stop adding their kids onto their "dole". Some supposedly disabled people have a bunch of kids that can really rack up their monthly benefit into the thousands of dollars each month. Yes, that's how they can afford new cars all the time. There should be a strict limit of 2 kids and not 8 or 10 kids to collect child benefits just because their mom or dad is collecting money.

What sort of monthly monies would you suggest that the recipients be tested?

You make a fair point about the disability issue.

I thought the Simpsons were joking when Homer purposely gained 300lbs so he could go on disability and work from home. Twinkie So You really can get disability for being obese?

Since many workers have to pass a drug test in order to work, and since their taxes pay for various entitlements, [B]the recipents of those entitlements should have to pass regular drug tests to get their checks.

That would be fair wouldn't it?Hello gal:

Not really. Oh, it might be OK to chop the parents benefits, but what if the kids aren't on drugs? They should starve or be put on the street?

Oh, if only the world were as simple as you folks think it is... But, of course, it ain't.

excon

Hello gal:

Not really. Oh, it might be ok to chop the parents benefits, but what if the kids aren't on drugs? They should starve or be put on the street?

Oh, if only the world were as simple as you folks think it is.... But, of course, it ain't.

excon


Stricter parenting laws. You get caught doing drugs on taxpayer money, and your kids are now adoptable. Period. None of this second and third chance crap.

And kids of parents who abuse drugs don't starve and are not put in the streets now--there's this great program called "foster care".

Personally, I think that if you're on welfare, your "right" to have more children should be taken away anyway. Along with qualifiying for your check, you get the choice of long term birth control or sterilization.

Personally, I think that if you're on welfare, your "right" to have more children should be taken away anyway. Hello again, Syn:

Your rightwingedness notwithstanding, you're still a sexy wench.

excon

And kids of parents who abuse drugs don't starve and are not put in the streets now--there's this great program called "foster care".

.

Foster care isn't a ride in the park. It's a death sentence for some, or a fate worse then death. I could tell you horror stories of that option, beatings, starvation, etc. Most Childrens' Aid Societies (who recommend to Foster Care) are over worked and under funded, so they don't their asses from a hole in the ground. If my comments offend some here, I can tell you I have had to go in some of these Foster Care homes and give second opinion of care before the kids are thankfully taken out, only to go again... yes guess what... more foster care.

Tick on a soap box

Foster care IS a horrid option the way the system currently stands.

However--many of the people I know that would make TERRIFIC foster parents won't do it because they don't want to get attached to a child, only to have the child given back to the parents that abused him/her in the first place.

Betcha you'd get more and better foster care parents if they knew they weren't giving their time and energy and love only to have the state say that the parents who couldn't take care of their child in the first place have been "rehabilitated" and can get their children back--only to relapse again and again.

One child I knew in foster care HATED foster care--not because it was worse than her life with her parents, because it most certainly was NOT (the abuses she went through were of the worst kind you can imagine), but because they kept putting her in foster care, giving her back to her mother to abuse some more, then putting her in a DIFFERENT foster care family the next time.

If her mother had lost her parental rights the FIRST time, she would have been adoptable at age 5, but by the time they finally yanked her mother's parental rights, she was 14 and lost in the system--and VERY few people will adopt a 14 year old with emotional and mental issues from abuse.

The problem isn't foster care. The problem is that we are too lenient on parents that REALLY screw up the first time. No parent that sells their child for drugs should EVER get another chance at parenting. No parent that can't stay off crack while pregnant should get a chance to parent that child--an infant, even crack addicted, is EMINENTLY adoptable. An 8 year old addicted to drugs with behavioral issues because her mother was never a parent is NOT.

HOWEVER--the system as it stands is very flawed. Bonuses based on children placed or adopted makes false accusations more likely to result in kids being taken from parents who actually DID do nothing wrong--a spanking in a park is not child abuse, for example.

Either way-=it's too easy for just anyone to have a kid and have rights to the kid. I don't know exactly how to fix the whole thing, but a good start would be stopping people who can't afford the kids they ALREADY have from having MORE kids.