- 23,524
- 18,611
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2010
Thats about Kentucky, I had no idea there was another state doing this as well
Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure....Good or Bad?
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by witnesskb24,
- Start date
- 23,524
- 18,611
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2010
Thats about Kentucky, I had no idea there was another state doing this as well
- 5,172
- 27
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- 5,172
- 27
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- 632
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
This...lol, I give until august for me to find my car on bricks in the morning and my house broken into, the when its christmas time its gonna be super crazy in hialeah!
- 632
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
This...lol, I give until august for me to find my car on bricks in the morning and my house broken into, the when its christmas time its gonna be super crazy in hialeah!
- 6,385
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
Next in line san Francisco please
- 6,385
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
Next in line san Francisco please
- 632
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- 6,429
- 15,527
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
You guys do realize the perverse incentive created by such a law? It should be called the "trade in marijuana for crack, meth and heroin act." THC stays in a person's system for weeks while cocaine and opiates and methamphetamine will usually be out of an addict's system within days. This encourages someone who might have only smoked marijuana to take up stronger, more dagerous and more addictive drugs.
Will the CEO's of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, AIG and Goldman Sachs and every other bailed out firm be willing to piss in a cup on demand. They are all welfare recipients after all.
Will tobacco, caffeine and alcohol be on that list of banned substances?
The definition of "recipient of government benefits" is very elastic. I understand the underlying logic of drug testing people who receive tax payer to beneficiary payments. However, as Senator Orrin Hatch proposed, everyone who gets Unemployment benefits should be drugs tested. In theory at least, those benefits are a form of insurance and not welfare payments as is social security and medicare and workers' compensation. Should we test anyone in those programs. What about anyone whose mortgage was bundled and sold to a GSE? What about any who every drives on government funded roads.
Finally, I hope that you younger people here take a lesson from this. Big government means less privacy for you. The more benefits that you get from the public treasury, the more they attach strings to those benefits and one day a "free" man might be treated about the same as an inmate in a penitentiary today.
Will the CEO's of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, AIG and Goldman Sachs and every other bailed out firm be willing to piss in a cup on demand. They are all welfare recipients after all.
Will tobacco, caffeine and alcohol be on that list of banned substances?
The definition of "recipient of government benefits" is very elastic. I understand the underlying logic of drug testing people who receive tax payer to beneficiary payments. However, as Senator Orrin Hatch proposed, everyone who gets Unemployment benefits should be drugs tested. In theory at least, those benefits are a form of insurance and not welfare payments as is social security and medicare and workers' compensation. Should we test anyone in those programs. What about anyone whose mortgage was bundled and sold to a GSE? What about any who every drives on government funded roads.
Finally, I hope that you younger people here take a lesson from this. Big government means less privacy for you. The more benefits that you get from the public treasury, the more they attach strings to those benefits and one day a "free" man might be treated about the same as an inmate in a penitentiary today.
- 632
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- 6,429
- 15,527
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
You guys do realize the perverse incentive created by such a law? It should be called the "trade in marijuana for crack, meth and heroin act." THC stays in a person's system for weeks while cocaine and opiates and methamphetamine will usually be out of an addict's system within days. This encourages someone who might have only smoked marijuana to take up stronger, more dagerous and more addictive drugs.
Will the CEO's of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, AIG and Goldman Sachs and every other bailed out firm be willing to piss in a cup on demand. They are all welfare recipients after all.
Will tobacco, caffeine and alcohol be on that list of banned substances?
The definition of "recipient of government benefits" is very elastic. I understand the underlying logic of drug testing people who receive tax payer to beneficiary payments. However, as Senator Orrin Hatch proposed, everyone who gets Unemployment benefits should be drugs tested. In theory at least, those benefits are a form of insurance and not welfare payments as is social security and medicare and workers' compensation. Should we test anyone in those programs. What about anyone whose mortgage was bundled and sold to a GSE? What about any who every drives on government funded roads.
Finally, I hope that you younger people here take a lesson from this. Big government means less privacy for you. The more benefits that you get from the public treasury, the more they attach strings to those benefits and one day a "free" man might be treated about the same as an inmate in a penitentiary today.
Will the CEO's of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, AIG and Goldman Sachs and every other bailed out firm be willing to piss in a cup on demand. They are all welfare recipients after all.
Will tobacco, caffeine and alcohol be on that list of banned substances?
The definition of "recipient of government benefits" is very elastic. I understand the underlying logic of drug testing people who receive tax payer to beneficiary payments. However, as Senator Orrin Hatch proposed, everyone who gets Unemployment benefits should be drugs tested. In theory at least, those benefits are a form of insurance and not welfare payments as is social security and medicare and workers' compensation. Should we test anyone in those programs. What about anyone whose mortgage was bundled and sold to a GSE? What about any who every drives on government funded roads.
Finally, I hope that you younger people here take a lesson from this. Big government means less privacy for you. The more benefits that you get from the public treasury, the more they attach strings to those benefits and one day a "free" man might be treated about the same as an inmate in a penitentiary today.
- 23,524
- 18,611
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2010
I don't drink nor do I view beer like that, but thanks.....You know what they say about how you shouldn't ASSUme, right?
- 23,524
- 18,611
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2010
I don't drink nor do I view beer like that, but thanks.....You know what they say about how you shouldn't ASSUme, right?
- 2,328
- 2,078
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- 2,328
- 2,078
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- 12,981
- 5,243
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
end well this will not...
- 12,981
- 5,243
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
end well this will not...
- 8,416
- 1,852
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
Originally Posted by SGpinoy
Im assuming child services would step in and take the child, right?Originally Posted by seasoned vet
....so when that crackhead gets kicked off welfare, whos' going to feed those kids the crackhead had? think it over, ill wait.
Originally Posted by Cant Nobody Stop Me
Wouldnt they deem you unfit to raise your children and take them away?Originally Posted by seasoned vet
....so when that crackhead gets kicked off welfare, whos' going to feed those kids the crackhead had? think it over, ill wait.
........maybe, maybe not. that system is hella flawed as it is currently.
.....my only point is that solutions like these only solve problems on the surface. (c'mon man yall are smarter than this). id much rather the resources going towards this be used to fund a more efficient program that makes sure the funds are used properly or more effectively.
eNPHAN had a great idea in welfare being set up more like WIC, instead of damn near a blank check to buy what you choose. <- that idea kills 2 birds with one stone. the kids still get to eat because the crackhead wont be able to sell a pound of flour, a dozen eggs, and boxes of cereal as easy as they can just loan their link card out for a rock.
this? this bs +$@ law? thats just some *@!$ to appease people who cant see the forest through the trees
- 8,416
- 1,852
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2005
Originally Posted by SGpinoy
Im assuming child services would step in and take the child, right?Originally Posted by seasoned vet
....so when that crackhead gets kicked off welfare, whos' going to feed those kids the crackhead had? think it over, ill wait.
Originally Posted by Cant Nobody Stop Me
Wouldnt they deem you unfit to raise your children and take them away?Originally Posted by seasoned vet
....so when that crackhead gets kicked off welfare, whos' going to feed those kids the crackhead had? think it over, ill wait.
........maybe, maybe not. that system is hella flawed as it is currently.
.....my only point is that solutions like these only solve problems on the surface. (c'mon man yall are smarter than this). id much rather the resources going towards this be used to fund a more efficient program that makes sure the funds are used properly or more effectively.
eNPHAN had a great idea in welfare being set up more like WIC, instead of damn near a blank check to buy what you choose. <- that idea kills 2 birds with one stone. the kids still get to eat because the crackhead wont be able to sell a pound of flour, a dozen eggs, and boxes of cereal as easy as they can just loan their link card out for a rock.
this? this bs +$@ law? thats just some *@!$ to appease people who cant see the forest through the trees
- 19,988
- 9,714
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2001
Not as good as the mandatory birth control for women on welfare that I'd like to see.
- 19,988
- 9,714
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2001
Not as good as the mandatory birth control for women on welfare that I'd like to see.
- 6,429
- 15,527
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
Originally Posted by WITNESSkb24
I don't drink nor do I view beer like that, but thanks.....You know what they say about how you shouldn't ASSUme, right?
This was from, another thread about Missouri doing the same thing and everything but that point is the same. I will edit this pro forma response because, it seems like this drug testing for benefits in various states is catching on all over the country.
- 6,429
- 15,527
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
Originally Posted by WITNESSkb24
I don't drink nor do I view beer like that, but thanks.....You know what they say about how you shouldn't ASSUme, right?
This was from, another thread about Missouri doing the same thing and everything but that point is the same. I will edit this pro forma response because, it seems like this drug testing for benefits in various states is catching on all over the country.
- 6,396
- 16
- Joined
- May 1, 2006
Originally Posted by tkthafm
