Friday, April 06, 2007

Urine Test For A Welfare Check

This has been going around the Internet. Can anyone argue otherwise?
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 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 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 sitting on their ass. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check??

8 comments: said...

Did you submit your site at

You can reach blogsearch by just typing in your browser window or click here

This is a service by bizleadsnet directory of web logs.

Anonymous said...

It assumes many things:

1. That welfare people are lazy. Is this true?

Are all people on welfare lazy? If not, then we want to deprive them of their privacy too? Clearly you felt that taking a urine test was an intrusion of some sort or an email like this would be sent around.

2. It assumes that people on welfare have no right to privacy. You apply for a job. If you don't want to take a urine test, you can apply for another job. But you are voluntarily submitting for a urine test. If you are on welfare, you have no choice.

Not all jobs require a urine test. I never took one when I was hired.

3. Government should get bigger and have more control over people. Why stop at welfare? Why not all government funded organizations? Anything that the taxpayers pay for should be drug tested? Imagine how much money you would save if Medicare and Medicaid recipients were tested as well? How about unemployment recipients? Disability?

Imagine the bureacracy needed to set up these tests? And let's test those people who work in this bureacracy too!

How much money is your privacy worth? Because if the gov't starts testing one group of people, someone later will try to expand it.

See how the anti-drug laws are being used in non-drug crimes.

4. The gov't doesn't distribute the taxes as they see fit. The gov't does so based on how it gets voted into power. So if you vote, you get to influence how the taxes are spent.

els said...

Drug test welfare recipients? This by fare has got to be the question of the year. Why not urine test welfare recipients? Makes sense, right? I work in a job that requires me to take a random drug test anytime the company feels like giving one. However, my company is not a state nor is it a government job. What allows my company to do this? A law that they put in place or is it a policy that the company felt they should put in place in an effort to hire good moral people to run their books? Exactly what defines good and moral people? People who do not test positive for drugs? I don’t know. I can’t tell you, but what I can say, is that it is the American way. This company has the right to either test or not test based on the policy that they freely wrote without government intervention. Thank God!

For those of you who believe that a urine test should be done for those who collect welfare, the question that I have for you is how much is it going to cost me? Exactly what is this going to solve; benefits to be taken away from those who test positive for drug use? GREAT! Let’s let the future American children suffer. I mean why not kids on welfare are headed straight for juvy right? I have another question for you, what is the ratio of people on welfare who would fail a urine test? How many of those people on welfare are single mothers trying to make it because the father would not own up to the responsibilities, and vise versa? How many single fathers are on welfare because the mother decided she did not want any kids? What about those family members who have taken in nephews, nieces, grandchildren, because the parents died through no fault of their own or even through their own fault. Is that the children’s fault? What about foster families, who depend on the government for assistance to raise kids who have been put out on the street because their parents could not take care of them or hated them or beat them or abused them? I mean define the kind of law that you want exactly.

Perhaps you are consoling yourself by saying that you have no problem helping people who need to get back on their feet, but consider exactly what you are asking people to do. Once government mandates urine testing for welfare recipients, what is next? Mandating urine testing for people who wish to own a gun? Mandating urine testing for people who wish to go into a state park and camp? How about those people who wish to enter into the White House just to take the tour? What about mandating drug testing for people who wish to travel on an airplane? God help us all!!!

Lastly remember the historic events that created welfare. Yes ladies and gentlemen, in case you did not know, welfare was not created for Niggers, Spics or, White trash. No welfare was created during the great depression of the 1930’s. For 60 years, until Clinton came into office, local and state government as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing and shelter. The government took responsibility of this problem in 1935, a whole 5 years after the need. Remember the stock market crash. October 29, 1929. Most people back in the day did not have retirement; they did not have savings so that when things like loss of job happened, they did not know what to do or where to turn. Was it our government’s responsibility to take care of its people, HELL YES it was. America takes care of everybody else. We send aid to the tsunami victims, our men, women, sons, daughters, granddaughters, grandsons, nephews and nieces fight in war, and we send aid to earthquake victims all over the world. I am by no means a welfare recipient, but I am a concerned American. I am also an American who believes that the foundation of America was built on the belief in God. I would never turn away anyone who needed help, no matter what need they were in. It is not my place to judge them or ask them to take a test to see if they can pass it in order to get my help. I believe that most Americans are like this, frustrated with government, but always willing to help. Consider this, if you never have suffered a loss in your life, a worry of where your next meal was coming from, a fear of never seeing your child return from war, a sadness of seeing a loved one addicted to drugs, how do you put into action a law that is not defined? Categorizing people is not a solution, it is a dictatorship. Remember Hitler, he categorized the Jews by making them wear a star on their clothing. Is this what Americans really want? Aren’t we categorized enough?

Anonymous said...

This is a very interesting topic, and I must confess: I think that the tests should happen. I think it's a good idea for people who are suspected of drug use, are arrested for drug related charges, or are suspected of drug dealing.
Let's just look at the honest to God truth here. I live in Seattle, WA, and I love it. I love the liberal atmosphere. I live in what is known as the Emerald City, but the homeless population here is terrible. Wonderful programs like Low-Income and Homeless housing are tainted when all people see is the system being abused. The Hoi Polloi see the abuse of these programs and assume that they are mostly abused, which is not the case in the least. As it was mentioned earlier in the last column, Welfare was developed during the depression. However, I think that we need to realize that giving drug addicts free money is ENABLING them, not helping them. If you are a struggling single mother, or a person on disability -- if you are unemployed, abused, abandoned -- we have programs for you. But if you have a drinking/drug problem, you need rehab. The time/era in which welfare was created was exceptionally different than the one we are currently in. We are no longer in an era that values personal accountability. Democracy doesn't work without responsibility, and no one cares anymore. We have one half of the government that is full of paranoia, and another side that is so full of sloth that it took decades to convince someone that putting food stamp funds on a card like a credit card was a good idea. There's still no accountability as far as other funds are concerned. Child support funds aren't on a card, so there's no way for the non-custodial parent to know how the money is being spent. Welfare checks are still checks -- not card tracking system either. This isn't jekyl/hyde. It's just common sense. I've lived in low-income housing for 6 years. Six. At the first of the month, when I'm balancing my checkbook, others are calling prostitutes, and stumbling around the halls asking neighbors for lighters and spoons. While they're doing that, another person just got a letter in the mail saying that now, because they have a part time job that can barely pay rent let alone anything else, their food stamps are cut to 10 bucks a month, and all other aid will cease. The little girl who lives across the hall has cavities in her teeth because the state is out of funds for health care. Althought her mother works as hard as she can, it's not something that they can afford right now. And I'm sorry, when I think of that, and I hear the party that's going on right next door, I get mad. When I think of the fact that this little girls' mother, myself, and all of you out there are paying for that, I get mad. With that said, it makes *complete* sense to say, "Here. We think you're on drugs. Piss in this cup. You don't need welfare, you need rehab. Are you signing up for help today, or are you walking out of here with nothing?" People. The government KNOWS it's okay to deny people things. And they're right. You have to draw a line, but the problem is that it's saying no to the wrong people. And, Anonymous, no. Welfare people aren't lazy, and welfare people deserve privacy. However, welfare people also deserve a little respect, and they deserve to know that a crack whore getting her Friday paycheck is NOT as important to the governement as people who really, truly, use the system in the ways it was intended. And if that crack whore has to piss in a cup so that little girl across the hall can be able to smile without having to blush and put her hand over her mouth in shame, then SO..BE..IT. Piss in the cup, bitch.

Anonymous said...

the anonymous post stating that the tests should happen and that welfare recipients DO deserve respect and privacy and the respect enough to know that money is meant for them and not a crack whore, YOU ARE RIGHT ON TARGET. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Your perspective is very balanced. The problem with people saying that "if we do a urine test we're assuming that welfare recipients are guilty of drugs" is that it is a faulty assumption. We're not assuming they are, that's why we'd be doing a test. And for those that say that welfare wasn't created for trash it was created for people in the Depression era, well, you're right. But what does that have to do with how welfare is used today? This is the 1930's depression. You and I have NEVER seen times like those. Today we have plenty of opportunities, but unfortunately it can take a lot of time for people to get a job and stay on their feet. We do not have an atmosphere of accountability however for those who ARE on drugs. Those of you who say, "It's wrong to take money away from somebody who is a drug addict because then their children suffer," what are you thinking? The children ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE WE FEED THEIR PARENTS HABIT, NOT THEM. WE DON'T FEED THE CHILDREN WITH WELFARE MONEY BECAUSE WE CAN'T EVEN SEE HOW IT IS SPENT. Many times, it can spent in an "appropriate" way and then the product exchanged for something inappropriate (in the cases of products purchased with EBT cards, which are definitely a step up in the way of tracking but still not foolproof). My aunt was a heroin addict for much of her life. Do you think that the money she collected went to her child, my cousin? If you think that, then you must live in some kind of bubble. You're a fool if you believe that. Drugs are a terrible thing--people have sold their children into sex to feed a habit, and while not all of them do, the problems run the spectrum from neglect to flat out abuse. Our biggest mistake is not knowing which people are on drugs so that we CAN take care of their children (because they WILL NOT, no matter how many checks you throw their way.) And for those of you who think it's a violation of privacy, well guess what. It's been allowed by organizations OTHER THAN private organizations. And until something has been established as a violation of a constitutional right, it is allowed. You can argue it's a violation, but until it has been established as so, in the eyes of the law it is NOT. I have been drug tested in order to work in various schools. Do I feel violated that they looked at my pee? uhm, no. Do I feel like they think ALL people who work at a school are druggies? No, I don't. I think they are weeding out the few who are. And for those who say, should they have to pass a pee test to determine if they are worthy of our help? Yes, not because we are saying they are not worth human beings, but because if you give money to somebody so that they can LIVE, they probably shouldn't be wasting it on a habit, especially when that habit will prevent them from getting a job. So, it will be a vicious cycle for them. Anybody who knows ANYTHING about human behavior knows that accountability and the knowledge that different choices have different consequences means something, and enabling people who need A DIFFERENT KIND OF HELP means something else entirely. If we never expect anything out of anybody, what is there to try for? What irritates me is that people actually don't take into account how human behavior works when they say they believe people should be rewarded for the lifestyle they currently have. well, guess what, that's the problem with taking welfare away the minute somebody gets a job as well. it's like being punished! so those who get a job are punished, and those who perhaps use the help inappropriately are rewarded. How can this work?

and by the way, i'd rather pay for drug testing than for drugs. because then those who need public assistance because times are tough and they need help will actually be able to get the help they need, and if we weren't wasting it on people abusing it maybe we could use that money to reward those who find jobs by continuing to support them financially for a little while by supplementing their income so that the can get the help they need.

Anonymous said...

my previous post was meant to say, THIS IS N-O-T THE 1930'S DEPRESSION.

hanly said...

Excellent post,thanks for sharing.
pdf to jpeg converter
youtube to mp3 converter
Perfect !! Now i add it to bookmark!
Blu-ray Ripper for Mac

aiai said...

For a pair of sleek gloves that would look great with your suit, pick up the Ross Gloves Italian Sheepskin Gloves with Cashmere lining. These gloves are perfect for those who live in metropolitan areas
spyder skiwhere the temperatures drop in the winter because these gloves are lined with extra warm and soft cashmere for that added layer of spyderwarmth and insulation. The premium Italian lambskin will mold to your hands in a close fit and the slim lines of this glove are convenient enough to slip into your pockets when not neededspyder jacket.

For a great pair of gloves that will keep up with you on the slopes even spyder ski wearin the harshest of temperatures, pick up the Burton' Gore-Tex Under Gloves for $64.95. The Thermacore insulation on these ski jacketgloves will keep your fingers warm even when the freezing wind and slate beats down on you. spyderThe DryRide Ultrashell combined with the Gore-Tex Insert ensures that nothing will get your fingers wet. spyderThe hidden heater and vent pocket stashes extra warmth on the cold days and dumps spyder jacketsexcess heat in the spring. spyder ski wearIf you are worried about your goggles getting steamed up, these gloves help solve that problem with the soft chamois goggle wipe which will keep your vision clear.