Ask Me Help Desk - The world we live in

What makes me so angry is police will send out helicopters, dogs and god knows what getting hold of stupid little asbo teenagers/adults but when there is a proven peadophile sitting in his little chair in his little house the police don't do a thing about it! It's sickening!
Itry and tell people we should do something about it but no one wants to hear it they bury it under their hats! It's sick and that's one of th thing that drives me mental!

The other is doll dossers! People who can't be botherd going to work so they go on the doll! I don't work but I don't doll doss! Its not my money I haven't earned so why should I get it? I know there are genuine people out there that have genuine reasons like peopl who CAN'T work! But urgh! DOLL DOSSERS GET OFF YOUR FAT BACKSIDES AND MAKE SOMETHING OF YOURSELVES!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashleysb

I found this online today, I couldn't help but put it in this discussion to see how many people agreed with it.

"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 they see fit.

In order to get that paycheck--I am required to pass a random urine test,
which I have no problem with.

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 sit on their butt.

Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass
a urine test to get a public assistance check?"
Dysan.net

You know, that is a great idea! I think I will fax my reps on that one.

#386 Ashleysb - agree with you
- however I would give the offender ONE shot at rehab - that is it-
fail another drug screen and you are no longer eligible for HUD
housing, a 'welfare check ,' disability, medicaid.
The consequences have to be real for people to decide and
be personally responsible for their actions.
- I would also include unexplained controlled prescription drugs
[ lortab, xanax etc. ] as a positive drug test.
- There would have to be a certain amount of time 'clean' [ 2 years?]
for and individual to become eligible for benefits again.

I know the civil libertarians would go crazy but people in crucial jobs should also undergo random drug screens if they don't already.
Airline pilots, doctors, nurses, truck drivers to name a few.

Most companies have a drug testing policy in place. My husbands company does. They can enforce it any time they wish. They normally don't unless things start happening on the job.

Personally, I refuse to work in a job where I need to be drug tested.

If I worked at a job where being high/drunk could easily hurt or kill someone, that would be different... but I'm a desk jockey. To me, that's an invasion of privacy. What if I test positive for something because of something I've eaten or because of a medication that has been prescribed to me by my doctor?

I'm personally of the opinion that it's an invasion of my privacy, and I'll quit rather than take a piss test... even though I haven't done drugs since I was in college years ago.

This whole topic just makes me angry. I'm so tired of laws that take away from personal freedoms in order to give "security" to everyone else. What the heck difference does it make if the guy at the music store in the mall smokes pot or not? What's next? Denying jobs to people who have chronic depression and need to be medicated for it? Denying jobs to people NOT taking their medication? Employers having access to your medical records? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances that my fast food order was wrong.

Like I said... if your job could endanger the lives of others if something goes wrong when you're SOBER--like an airline pilot, someone in the military, anyone in the medical field, a truck driver or a parent--then you should be tested. Anyone else--well, if they're not performing to the standards of the job, there's a reason to fire them already, isn't there?

I agree with Synnen. Careful consideration has to be given to drug testing in the public domain. It can quite easily become an invasion of privacy issue.

Down here sportsman get tested for 'recreational' (I hate that word to refer to drugs as) drugs as well as performance enhancing. In my opinion that is wrong. Sure, trest them for perforamce enhancing drugs every day of the week, but recreational drugs that more likely have a negative impact on performance should not be tested for IMO. Society (unless in a job such as Synnen outlined above) does not get drug tested in their place of work. I don't come to my office each day and pee into a cup to be tested for snorting a few lines of cocaine last night. And frankly if I did, that's my business. Everyone in my office would be up in arms if they were tested for recreational drugs that it was an invasion of privacy, yet when they here of one of their sports stars getting caught for smoking some weed they want them hung, drawn and quartered. Society has some double standards sometimes when it comes to things like this!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NowWhat

Most companies have a drug testing policy in place. My husbands company does. They can enforce it any time they wish. They normally don't unless things start happening on the job.

What does your husband think about this?

Hello again:

People, People, People, how you have gone astray... For shame.

The idea of drug testing people in the workplace is for safety, not to find out if people are moral. However, given what I've read here, it's not surprising to hear that you people have turned it into that.

Tell me, whose safety is compromised because some person on welfare get's loaded??

Does that mean I believe in welfare? No. Does that mean I believe in drugs? No. It DOES mean that I don't believe in testing ones morals for participation in a government program.

You think testing for morals is good, huh?? Wait till they have a test for infidelity. I'll bet you'll change your tune then, all right...

excon

My husband doesn't care. Normally, a test is done at the time of hire. And if an accident occurs then another one is done. If an accident happens - it cost his company lots of money and they could lose more if they lose the customer.

I think the point of having welfare participants take a test (this is how I interperted it) is to make sure that government dollars weren't being spent on drugs. That if they are on federal assistance it is to better themselves - not to buy drugs. And I am not saying that just because you are on welfare means you do drugs. I don't know if I agree with having a test like this performed - but it is aggravating seeing a lot of people on welfare doing things like drugs or finding a way to "cheat" the system. There are people out there that need assistance and then there are those that want to make it a lifestyle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

People, People, People, how you have gone astray...... For shame.

The idea of drug testing people in the workplace is for safety, not to find out if people are moral. However, given what I've read here, it's not surprising to hear that you people have turned it into that.

Tell me, whose safety is compromised because some person on welfare get's loaded??????

Does that mean I believe in welfare? No. Does that mean I believe in drugs? No. It DOES mean that I don't believe in testing ones morals for participation in a government program.

You think testing for morals is good, huh??? Wait till they have a test for infidelity. I'll bet you'll change your tune then, alright....

excon

I agree with you excon. Testing for morals is NOT GOOD!!
Testing for safety is!

And to answer your question about Quaalude's. I think Anthony Keidis and Chili Peppers ate them all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NowWhat

My husband doesn't care. Normally, a test is done at the time of hire. And if an accident occurs then another one is done. If an accident happens - it cost his company lots of money and they could lose more if they lose the customer.

I think the point of having welfare participants take a test (this is how I interperted it) is to make sure that government dollars weren't being spent on drugs. That if they are on federal assistance it is to better themselves - not to buy drugs. And I am not saying that just because you are on welfare means you do drugs. I don't know if I agree with having a test like this performed - but it is aggravating seeing alot of people on welfare doing things like drugs or finding a way to "cheat" the system. There are people out there that need assistance and then there are those that want to make it a lifestyle.

So should they test welfare recipients for alcohol too. Should they not be able to have a drink with some of the money they receive. I know alcohol is legal but surely the principle remains the same?

I agree that is frustrating and downright wrong when you see welfare money being spent in the wrong manner. But who are we to say what is spending that money rightly or wrongly? It is treading a very very fine line when you begin to test society for drugs in my opinion.

Just get rid of the welfare system entirely.

Churches are built to give to the needy, right? So... have someone in need join a church!

No... seriously... I really want to get rid of welfare, at least on the state and national level. Make charity local. If you KNOW the guy it's going to, it makes it a bit easier to understand why they're getting it.

Now... disasters are something else. When a Hurricane Katrina or a tornado like what happened this past Friday happen, well... that's when I want to help someone further from home.

Frankly... the idea that DVD players and movies and alcohol and such SHOULD be purchased while on public assistance... that just floors me. If I can't afford to go out to a movie with my husband because there just isn't enough money after buying food and paying the bills... why the HELL should someone else get to on taxpayer dollars?

We figured out one time that we'd be better off to start making half of what we currently make and go on welfare. We'd get more stuff, work half as hard, get a chance to buy a house at a lower price, get more and better food, and still have money to play with! THAT is where I call bull.

People should have to EARN perks. A roof over your head and enough food to eat should be enough from public assistance. Everythign else is pure bull.

I agree Synenn about people having to earn perks. But how do you moderate it and who decides what is a perk?

I don't know how you could regulate what people are using the money for. What do you think about establishing a time limit for welfare? Giving a certain amount of time to get out the hole you are in?
There are people out there that have more kids just to stay on welfare. They cheat the system.
My husbands family had to go on welfare when he was a child. There were four kids and his mom was unable to work due to her health - they needed it. They got on their feet and got off it. It bothered his parents to actually take this help - but they had to. They weren't o.k. with letting everyone else take care of them.

Oh and most churches do have an outreach program for the community. My church and another in town offer free meals once a month to the community. They teamed up with the food bank. With our town and the neighboring town - a person can find a free meal once a week - every week.
That counts for something.

I think what's wrong with this world is that we have become selfish and selfcentered, and we don't give much credit to our maker!

Hello again:

Didn't we do the welfare reducing thing years ago?? Wasn't it under Ronald Reagan? Didn't we stop the cycle? I think we did. I think the story of the mother who stays at home to have more children to increase her welfare checks are stories of the past. I think the people on welfare today, REALLY need it.

Ok, not everybody, and there are scammers, but I don't think it's the problem it once was. Of course, I come from a belief that the government ought to be the ultimate backstop. I understand there are those amongst you who don't share that belief.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NowWhat

Okay, at the advice of , RubyPitbull I have started a new thread. A new discussion.

Sort of talking out what we feel is wrong with this world - or our country. What we can do to fix it or make it better.

What tops your list as the most important issue?

There are lots to choose from

How we handle our criminals - is it fair or right that a non violent criminal gets 20 years for not paying his taxes and the guy he shares his cell with killed a child, but will get out in 7 with good behavior? Am I the only one that finds that disturbing?
(I guess that is what gets me going)

Or how about the war? How much longer do our guys have to fight and die? When can they come home? What is the war really about anyway?

What makes you angry? How would you change it if you could?

So here is my post - I hope you find it thought provoking.

As far as the criminal justice system, this country was founded by the dominant race, white men, white rich men. And they still hold the power in this country. The system is set up in so many ways to fail minority groups and low income citizens.
First, the three strikes rule and you are out law. OK, I sold drugs to support my family and I live in an impoversihed area to begin with. I grew up in it, learned it, yeah there were opprotunties for college, but hey, I have to support my family. So I go sell my drugs, it beats the $5.15 I made at McD's. So I go to jail and do my time right?? I am freed back into society to start over. Rude awakening. Now you have a felony and you cannot pay anyone to give you a job. So the kids need to eat, so sell the crack. Get my point?
Everyone give 10%, time and money. God's word is the cure.

I saw a frontline show on qualudes. They disappeared because the fda [or some other guv't agency] convinced/negotiated with the only country that made the essential ingredient.

Meth on the other hand be made by anyone with various ingredients readily available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

Didn't we do the welfare reducing thing years ago??? Wasn't it under Ronald Reagan? Didn't we stop the cycle? I think we did. I think the story of the mother who stays at home to have more children to increase her welfare checks are stories of the past. I think the people on welfare today, REALLY need it.

Ok, not everybody, and there are scammers, but I don't think it's the problem it once was. Of course, I come from a belief that the government ought to be the ultimate backstop. I understand there are those amongst you who don't share that belief.

excon

I disagree with you on this. I have a member of my family who is on welfare and she completely does not need it. Her daughter has everything she ever wanted (4 portable DVD players, an MP3 player, a TV in her bedroom, you name it she has it). Plus they pay to board their 3 horses at a local farm, and did I mention that they drive a realitively new Jeep. Yet they are on welfare, and they get free Thanksgiving dinners. This past year the daughter was a child on the "giving" tree at a local church.

This woman gets a kick out of what she can get from the government for "free."

Okay - I want your opinions on this -

Prostitution. I was reading today, where a madam from D.C. got arrested. Should it be legal? This is something I have never given much thought to - so I don't know if I have a strong opinion either way. But - I know you guys have opinions on everything - so please share.

And something to think about - is sex ever free anyway? Just a thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NowWhat

And something to think about - is sex ever free anyways? just a thought.

Wow, expand on that please.

Well, let me think of how to say this...

If my husband is in a bad mood, we can do the deed and he's in a better mood. My price to pay for an attitude adjustment.
Or if I am not in the mood, but he is - we do the deed and I have a happy husband. Again, My price for a happy husband.

Or here's one - a guy takes a girl he's been dating for a month, out for a really expensive dinner. At the end of the dinner he expects a pay off sex.

Isn't there a comedian that has a line in his act that goes something like this -

"She wanted foreplay - I say, I bought you pizza, you knew I wanted to F. ya"

I don't think I have ever thought about describing sex as "the deed." Anywhose, I don't think I want to touch that whole price thing you just described.

Regarding prostitution, it seems to work pretty well in Nevada and in other countries where it is legal and regulated. So, my feeling is, why not? I think it should be legalized.

I was trying to be nice by saying "the deed". :)
Does that make me a prude?

Yea, I don't think all women or men view sex as a reward for something. That said it is certain that some women use it as a means to an end and that's not right. Of course men fall for it so it's a vicious cycle.

And you have never heard the AC/DC song Dirty Deeds?

If you have two consenting adults - one of which will be getting paid - what is the difference?
And some women feel that they have no other option than to strip or become a hooker to make ends meet.

LOL NK.

No, NW, it doesn't make you a prude, it's just that there are a lot of words that come into my mind regarding sex before the word "deed" would find it's way in there. Kind of has a negative connotation to it to me, and I have never thought of it is a "deed." But, I guess you could build a case for it.

Prostitution is considered the oldest profession in the world.

I never thought of it as negative - huh - you really think it sounds negative?

Plus, I can have a conversation with him on the phone with my kid in earshot and say "deed" and he knows what I mean - but she doesn't.

I think what she's saying is that while we may not always pay for sex in monetary ways, we all pay for sex one way or another :P

Like... sometimes I have to COOK! And make STEAK! And then I have to wear slinky clothing! All just to get sex! It's outrageous!

I realize that it's part of the give and take of married life, but in a way it IS coin in a marriage. How many relationships fail due to one person or another feeling that they are not "paid" enough with sexual relations of some sort? Or feel like they're being overcharged for it?

It's an interesting question, honestly.

Oops, I was talking in the context of a marriage. I guess I didn't make that clear at all.

Thank you, synnen, I was beginning to think I was the only one that thought this way!
Or the only one that "pays" for sex in marriage!

Well, yeah, in marriage - or relationships - sex is used to manipulate a situation. Not every marriage - but I have heard where someone will withhold sex in order to get their way.
And women aren't the only ones that are guilty of that.

Okay, Synn. I guess I know where you stand. LOL. I never really thought of it that way.

NW, I know what you are saying. It does make sense to use that word on the phone with your husband in front of your daughter. I guess using it as a regular part of your vocabulary, prompted you to say that here.

For me, whenever I hear "the deed" it always sounds like it is a chore. I am not sure why I make that connection. I have never viewed sex as a chore.

Does begging count as paying for it?

magprob, only if you actually get it.

I think begging counts.
As does buying roses, box of chocolates, fancy jewlery, etc. etc..