Welfare recipients to be drug tested

If you ask me for money and I say no you're being subjugated? Not to mention the fact that I would have given you the money if you weren't on drugs.

 

So basically, you want the government to take care of you, but you still want complete freedom? Seems kind of ironic as I would assert that you are the one who opened the door to government interference in your life. It doesn't end, I've been saying this for years.

I'll take care of myself and smoke all the crack I want.

 

The idea itself seems sensible; still I wonder if the process of drug testing all of the welfare recipients will be too expensive to be worth it.

 

Dodge, but okay. I don't want either of those things.

Why should the government be able to judge benefits based on your personal life choices? Where will it end?

 

Alcohol is a powerful, mood altering drug which also ruins lives; why deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States who are not that into alcohol, since it is proscribed in our federal Constitution? I would agree with you if they also tested for alcohol and tobacco.

 

Why?

Because that's what the media tells you?

I know many stoners, including myself, who manage to hold down successful careers as there's a difference between drug use and drug abuse.

This law would make as much sense and would serve its purpose if it required everyone to dye their hair purple in order to receive benefits.

 

That's not a dodge. My point is, if you want something for nothing, the least you can do is follow the rules of the people that are giving you the free stuff.

By your logic, people should be able to buy cigarettes with food stamps. That's not allowed, because it's counter-intuitive to the purpose of food stamps in the first place. Just as doing drugs is counter-intuitive to the purpose of welfare, which is supposed to be assistance in improving your own life. If you're doing drugs, you're not improving your life.

I'm not referring to you personally by the way.

 

So, basically, I would rather that our government improve the efficiency of the market for labor via market friendly means, rather than have a government or Nanny-State take care of my drug problems while not solving official poverty. Where is there any consistency in forms of fiscal responsibility on the part of the republicans and their republican doctrine?

 

And you would ask the taxpayers to support your illegal hobbies? Smoke all you want, I don't care, just don't do it on my dime.

 

I'm all for testing them for anything that could harm their health.

 

I'd rather have both. The labor market is a problem in itself, but drug use is not going to assist you in getting a job, no matter what.

 

Please don't insult my intelligence. I don't even own a TV. Drug use does not make you more productive, fact. If you're so poor that you need to be on government assistance, you have no business doing anything except getting on your own two feet.

 

You don't know anything about me, so don't bandy assumptions about.

I have to take a drug test for a job. I'm an xray tech.
I can be subjected to random testing too. All my boss has to do is order it. I have no say. I am just fine with that. I have a responsibility to the patients to be clear minded.

We're talking here about welfare recipients. I don't think tax money should go to anyone who can afford to buy drugs. I don't think tax money should end up paying for drugs either.

I applaud Florida for taking this step. It's what their residents want. It's not unconstitutional as far as I can see.

Don't know if you're a socialist, communist, or what. But get your head on straight. This is America, not China, and we citizens have a right to try to keep our hard earned money from being wasted on druggies buying drugs with welfare money. Maybe you don't know what subjugation really is. This is not it.

 

Or if you're too old? Disabled?

 

Cool. Do they get a sample to identify? Anyway, in Florida most are so old the only drugs they'll give a positve to are heart medicine and viagra.

 

I would rather not need to ask for money from the government if they could ensure full employment of resources in the market for labor. Since they can't seem to do that, why should I expect the government to do any better with drugs? You may have noticed that the, only delegated, power to prohibit forms of Commerce among the several State of the Union was repealed with the Twenty-First Amendment; why repeat historical mistakes while claiming to believe the absolute, and subjective value of certain morals and systems of belief? The abomination of hypocrisy is worse than drug use, in my opinion.

 

You've posted over 1300 times... I think we all know enough about you.

I do too, most corporations have you sign consent upon employment.

Should every US citizen be subjugated to a drug test on account that they use public services? Should police and fire services only respond to places that have given passing samples?

Except the Constitution says that you can't discriminate. You're discriminating. That's simple.

Should we do BMI checks to see if our tax dollars are going to the poor and obese? WHERE DOES IT END? <-- That's your argument... used against you..

 

Actually, I'm in the upper middle class tax bracket, so perhaps the government should test me for drugs before they elect to take my hard earned cash. Because I pay a hefty sum into a system that uses these funds on wars that I consider to be criminal and to give tax breaks to corporations when the county is at the height of a fiscal crisis, yes, I would expect to receive benefits, while high as a kite, if I ever find myself on welfare thankyouverymuch.

 

The government can not hand you a job. It's unfortunate that there aren't many jobs right now, but I fail to see how getting high will solve the problem. This is not about morals or belief systems. Are you telling me you would honestly give the same homeless man $20 every single day without even doing any verification to make sure he wasn't spending your money on crack?

 

The fact still remains that you're getting something for free, and the least you can do is not spend the taxpayers' money on drugs. If you're old and disabled, you're more likely on medicaid than any other program, so my earlier point is still valid.

 

If you want to use your own money to buy drugs, fine. It is illegal and your job may test you but that's their business. If you would take money from the struggling taxpayers in "the height of a fiscal crisis" and use it to buy drugs, then that is truly sad. You are the reason that this testing is necessary.

 

Why should the government tell you how to use your money?

What if you buy your drugs with the money you make on minimum wage and pay rent with welfare cheques? Fair?

 

So if a corporation can test you, why can't the welfare office?

That is a completely different issue than this. The issue here is people taking money from the taxpayers that is intended to help them improve their life, and using them to buy drugs.

Yes, we should stop discriminating. If I make $100,000 a year, I should still get welfare. Otherwise, you're discriminating.

You're (*)(*)(*)(*) right we should. That money is intended for one purpose - to help people improve their lives. Not to provide them with free drugs and mcdonalds.

 

Your money? Okay. It is truly disgusting that you would advocate taking my hard earned money and give it to someone just so they can destroy their own lives and fund drug dealers.

No, not fair. If you have enough extra money to spend on drugs you shouldn't be on welfare.

 

Because you have the choice to find another employer... you don't really have as easy a choice in terms of governments.

Welfare wouldn't make sense for you, but perhaps healthcare benefits would.. but that's universal healthcare then...

At least you're consistent, I can respect that.