Advertisement

Previous poll Next poll

Do you support a bill in the Kansas Legislature to require random drug testing of those receiving public assistance?

Response Percent Votes
Yes
 
68% 826
No
 
28% 343
Not sure
 
3% 42
Total 1211

Comments

labmonkey 5 years, 9 months ago

Most jobs have random testing, why not freeloaders?

Mary Darst 5 years, 9 months ago

I voted no. The last thing I read about this was that it would cost the state more than it was worth. If they were tested and it came back positive, the state will send them to treatment ,then reissue them their benefits. Anyone checked lately on how much treatment is?

lmpaul 5 years, 9 months ago

Oh, yes. If they're getting my tax dollars - they take the test. Furthermore, every work day (M-F) head of household reports to city hall for job assignment no matter how simple the work. (Our nation could have the cleanest streets, parks, windows, flowerbeds.) If the head of household is a single mom, her job is to babysit for other mom's to work. Disabled can tutor - everyone knows something to teach, even a craft. Your earnings are your welfare check. Nothing in life is Free; earn your own. I have to.

grammaddy 5 years, 9 months ago

Yes! Yes! Yes! We lived in Edgewood for a minute back in the 80's and I saw too many crackheads and alcoholics living on the taxpayers money. I'm not saying it's still like that, but it never should have been. And now we've got the meth heads running all over town on top of it.

coolmom 5 years, 9 months ago

i am worried about the cost of this but find myself saying yes. many jobs now drug test including walmart and major corporations i think in order to qualify for public assistance you should have to pass a drug test but not have to take one again unless you got into legal trouble or something that would potentially disqualify you anyway. i struggle with the rights of these adults balance with the rights of their children and the public who pay into the system. i bet this will rage for a bit and i am sure plenty of people will sue or whatever but when do we decide that the cost of drugs is to high?

Maxwell Butterfield 5 years, 9 months ago

grammaddy, Edgewood is as close to the ghetto as Lawrence will ever get.

TheStig 5 years, 9 months ago

TrooGrit (Anonymous) says… "charliejohnson, what makes you so sure it's going to cost more than it's going to save? You don't know that!"

Doesn't matter if it costs more than it saves. No government handouts for those who have money to get high but not for food or rent.

Norm Jennings 5 years, 9 months ago

Whoaa guys...I hate the idea of my tax dollars going to drug users as much (or more) than the next guy/gal, but lets think about this a moment...

Drug users on public assistance...

more or less likely to have children they can not support?...

more or less likely to buy needs for children vs. tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc.?...

more or less likely to commit property crimes if public assistance support is not available?...

Yes I understand the immediate response (these kids are screwed anyway), but I don't want to contribute to the pain in the lives of any Lawrence children, no matter the imperfections of the public assistance programs or the parents providing to their children...

these tax $ likely pay back as much or more than most of the other boondoggles our tax $ are wasted on...

Frankly I'd be more interested in requiring drug/family/parenting classes/counseling for those receiving public assistance rather than laboratory tests...

Who do we truly punish? What will it cost us when the children of these families grow up?

HermioneElliott 5 years, 9 months ago

I don't understand how this is going to work. Is everyone on the rolls at SRS going to be tested? Where? What does random mean, the computer comes up with a day and names? Please, people don't be vicious to those who are receiving assistance and not doing anything wrong. That is called prejudice when you see a person in terms of the group they belong to. Those with alcohol and drug problems seem like such a stubborn and persistent lot, I cannot help but feel that if those traits were channeled into a job that business were succeed. I know, good luck with that!

TheStig 5 years, 9 months ago

Do you support a bill in the Kansas Legislature to require random drug testing of those receiving public assistance? Thanks for your vote.

Yes 71% 404 No 25% 141 Not sure 3% 17 Total 562

Even in Looney Lawrence there is overwhelming approval! The only rocks that need to be thrown are the rocks in the heads of those that want to provide public assistance for drug users.

llama726 5 years, 9 months ago

This essentially amounts to the government profiling individuals based upon socioeconomic class and targeting them. I understand the spirit of what they are trying to do and the reasons so many of you support it, but it doesn't make it any less wrong to categorize people based on their income and potentially pursue legal action against these individuals without due process (warrants, etc). Without this, it's just random search of citizens, and no matter how you dress it up as protecting tax dollars, it's impeding with rights.

I realize many employers require drug screenings, but you consent to that by signing waivers to your rights. This policy doesn't allow them that choice - essentially, the government is waiving their rights for them.

mistygreen 5 years, 9 months ago

I have to say no. The cost of the tests would far outweight any benefits. Plus, I'm sure those in the system will find a way to beat the system. Addiction is hard to live with as well as poverty, but I do not believe adding more tax dollars creating madatory drug testing is the answer. As for employer drug testing, the employer pays for the drug test. Be careful, if/when you do have to take a drug test. I failed once because of a prescription medication I took for migraine headaches. I then had to prove that I had a prescription at a pharmacy.

Hoots 5 years, 9 months ago

Some here have wondered if there is enough money provided by the government to keep using. One of my good friends mother was an alcoholic and he was angry that the government gave her so much money between the social security administration considering her disabled due to her drinking to the state giving her money. He always said it made him mad his taxes went for this kind of behavior. The way she fed her habit is she just didn’t eat and found ways to trade her benefits for bottles of liquor. If there’s a will there’s a way to abuse the system and continue abusing yourself. Many times the money they are given doesn’t go to its intended purposes due to some kind of substance abuse. This policy makes sense. My friend would have been all for it even though it would have targeted his mother.

ksarmychick 5 years, 9 months ago

I fail to see how this imposes on anyones rights....if they have the "right" to recieve my hard earned tax dollars for nothing, then I should have the "right" to have them tested. I have to summit to random drugs tests for my government employer (Army) in order to keep my job. They sould have to summit to random drug test to keep my free money. No one is forcing them to recieve assistance, if they don't like to policy they have the "right" not to recieve money. Just like they have the "right" to go get a job. I am suprised that some think welfare is a right. The government should along with drug testing, force anyone that goes on welfare to take birth control/surgically sterile, since they have already proven they cannot support what they already have.

llama726 5 years, 9 months ago

"The government should along with drug testing, force anyone that goes on welfare to take birth control/surgically sterile, since they have already proven they cannot support what they already have."

The above comment is very sad for the state of our country. The fact that you can say that is reprehensible, and really telling of the fact that politicians and talking heads in this country have taken advantage of people selfish interests, disguising it as being fiscally responsible. Not everyone has a large, well-connected family to turn to if times get rough. And times do get rough. Until you've been in a situation where you've had to swallow your pride and ask for help, don't comment. People like you and I have never been in the same circumstances as someone who has to go on welfare. I can't even believe you would post something so awful as requiring something like that.

Somehow, the "tax dollar" and money arguments have divorced several of us from our humanity.

ksarmychick 5 years, 9 months ago

What is a sad state for our economy, is people trying to live beyond their means and forcing themselves into poverty. If you can't afford the children you already have, then you shouldn't produce anymore. I am sick to death of people that I know taking advantage of the system. For example....I know this couple that between the 2 of them already had 6 children, are recieving every kind of free benefit out there(lets not forget the husband did prison time for armed robbery). And they CHOSE to bring a 7 child into this world. So now the government is going to give them even more money for free to take care of all their children. While I sometimes work for months at a time 24 hours a day with no days off to care for my children...seems real unfair to me.

jumpin_catfish 5 years, 9 months ago

I vote yes only if after testing positive they are off the assistance for....six months or whatever. No treatment, no get out of jail free but the issue that concerns me is if they have children.

And babboy what rock have you been under. I have been drug tested and background checked on last two jobs which goes back to 1978 and I'm clean baby, I'm clean!

ksarmychick 5 years, 9 months ago

No I'm not out of my mind...I just sick of people on welfare using the system as a handout, instead of a handup. The concept is quite simple. If you cannot support the offspring you already have then adding one or more offspring to the mix will only make you worse off. Last time I checked, the more children you have the more it will cost to raise them, not the other way around.

llama726 5 years, 9 months ago

Anecdotal evidence doesn't change the fact that the system is broken to begin with. I've known people to abuse laws, systems, benefits, and charities before. There are bad people in the world, but the solution isn't to target people based on that since they fall in the same economic status. It's not alway. But suggesting that the government surgically sterilize its citizens is insane.

Practicality 5 years, 9 months ago

lol, well said ksarmychick. Glad you have the courage to say something like that, although I am sure you will be attacked from all the quasi-intellectuals running around Lawrence believing that all of the problems of the downtrodden are the result of some great big corporate conspiracy.

I feel for the kids who will be effected by this law too, but maybe when we take the money from all these ineffectual parents, it can be used to place them in suitable care with non drug using adults as their role models.

If you need public assistance I am glad you can get it. If you are using that money to purchase drugs, I hope they take it away from you. Most people in America have to pass a drug test at their place of employment before they can start earning money, while should these people be any different.

mistygreen 5 years, 9 months ago

Autie,

That is exactly what I did. They called Walgreens and I was "passed" in minutes. I was suprised that the prescription I was taking for migrianes was considered a narcotic. I got a lesson in prescription drugs 101 that day. LOL.

seriouscat 5 years, 9 months ago

"Some here have wondered if there is enough money provided by the government to keep using. One of my good friends mother was an alcoholic and he was angry that the government gave her so much money between the social security administration considering her disabled due to her drinking to the state giving her money. He always said it made him mad his taxes went for this kind of behavior. The way she fed her habit is she just didn’t eat and found ways to trade her benefits for bottles of liquor. If there’s a will there’s a way to abuse the system and continue abusing yourself. Many times the money they are given doesn’t go to its intended purposes due to some kind of substance abuse. This policy makes sense. My friend would have been all for it even though it would have targeted his mother."

Random drug testing won't effect people who abuse alcohol at at all, since it is a legal drug. As a matter of fact, it will probably result in more people turning to the bottle instead of the bong in order to avoid losing benefits. Yikes!

Jaylee 5 years, 9 months ago

TheStig (Anonymous) says…

"Even in Looney Lawrence there is overwhelming approval! The only rocks that need to be thrown are the rocks in the heads of those that want to provide public assistance for drug users."

probably the most assumed 'fact' in this whole argument is that poor equates with drug dealer and burglar-- going to steal the neighborhood if we don't give them money. maybe that is a reason poor folks loosely classify well-off individuals as snobby, lacking conscience, and rude?

both sides would be making wrong judgments as they are judgments completely ignoring the individuals in those groups opposite them qualified to interact in a positive way with members of the their 'group.' and they do exist. i am one of them and i've been on both sides. i'm sick of both arguments already and this bill is only perpetuating this sort of stratifying environment of thought. it's a step backward and if you see it as anything else, you are misguided.

Hoots (Anonymous) says…

"If there’s a will there’s a way to abuse the system and continue abusing yourself. ..... This policy makes sense. "

let us read your thoughts with all the details edited out. your self-contradiction completely diffused any argument you claimed. the policy doesn't make sense because you ARE right, that if there is a will there is a way.


i guess what i am trying to say is that people who are abusers and abusers, not because they are poor, but because they have a habitual abuse/addiction problem serious enough that they would go to those lengths to acquire whatever substance.

i fail to see how grouping anyone who is poor enough to require assistance to feed themselves or their family with habitual drug users/abusers is right, ok, or even proposed thought?

i fail to see how random drug testing as a means of regulating the distribution of acquired funds is any less of a threat to our freedom and privacy than if the government were to say ask for itemized reciepts of all purchases, then telling a female she cant buy shoes anymore... or a man his car he uses to get around takes up too much money and he cannot use it anymore... etc.

i fail to see how you could look at a disadvantaged individual and, almost in mockery, publicly denounce them a crackhead, whether or not they are, who wrongly uses your tax money to purchase food and necessities... yet you demand the institution of a tax-benefited, costly program that will inefficiently, insufficiently supply the state with but a small, small handful of the people with said addiction problems and will not even supply them with a conclusive, comprehensive treatment in the end?

the other day i heard a conversation in which an individual claimed, "poor people are poor because they want to be".

uhhh, prolly not!

llama726 5 years, 9 months ago

See the above post. I would type more but that sums it up: "i fail to see how random drug testing as a means of regulating the distribution of acquired funds is any less of a threat to our freedom and privacy than if the government were to say ask for itemized reciepts of all purchases, then telling a female she cant buy shoes anymore… or a man his car he uses to get around takes up too much money and he cannot use it anymore… etc."

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

"In American, we do not do crap like this and the reason is that this is a country grounded in freedom."

Yes, but not freedom to use my tax dollars for your habit.

" There are many different reasons people have multiple children. Some do not believe in using birth control. Some just want large families etc, etc, etc."

Fantastic. But religious beliefs toward not using birth control and the desire to have a large family are not the issue. The argument is about people on welfare having more children. I don't think forced sterilization is the answer, but I wouldn't mind the loss of their benefits if someone gets pregnant while on the dole. Or, in the case of an egregious offender like Octo-mom, prison. There's needing assistance and then there's taking complete advantage. 'Course, with the direction this country's been heading, nothin' is the individual's fault anymore, there's no accountability, responsibility, and fewer repercussions. Swell.

tsunami02 5 years, 9 months ago

is this going to save money, or cost more. A working poor single mom. receives $14 a month in food stamps. Who here thinks it's going to be a good deal for who? Now your going to pay $30,000 for 1 month of treatment, plus the cost of the county to care for her kids while she goes. How many times? twice? then she'll get her $14 back.. Best premium in the nation. Just because she smokes a little pot now and then, which should be decriminalized anyways.

Jaylee 5 years, 9 months ago

actually jaywalker, i'm pretty sure the argument was about the legitimacy of a tax-funded system being employed to weed out a small number of those using tax-payers' dollars, solely based on the accusation that if you are poor, you use drugs instead of feeding yourself and family?

it sounds disturbingly preposterous and simple when said like that.

Jaylee 5 years, 9 months ago

tsunami, well put!!

like i said, incomprehensive and insufficient.

and like logic said, the about 2/3 majority of people who voted are looking at the issue through some fuzzy glasses or something! not too great at the whole putting themselves in shoes other than their own

sinverguenza 5 years, 9 months ago

Results of this poll are pretty shocking, depending on what you think Lawrence is all about, I guess.

People in support - I get it. It pisses me off that I have to piss clean for work in order to make money which is taxed to provide benefits for someone who isn't held to the same law-abiding standard that I am, let alone the same work-to-live standard that I am. Pisses me off even more when I can't afford to go have a few beers with friends while someone else living off my tax dollars can.

But what about the discrimination? What about the classism? And as LS04 pointed out, where do you draw the line?

Yes, it's unfair that people abuse the system. But the ends of this proposed policy do not justify the means.

HermioneElliott 5 years, 9 months ago

I know for a fact that there have been social workers who advised single mothers on welfare to have a free and easy sex life. You deserve it, they were told, and are being told. I get food stamps so I was required to attend this meeting. I walked out in disgust. Unfortunately there are social workers and others who come in contact with poor, single, welfare moms, who are so liberal and so out there, they are contributing to the problems. I count Hilda Enoch among them. I need help so I take all the help I can get. I also lead a responsible, decent life. The two are not irreconcilable. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are suffering and desperately want to change. They have to battle their peers, the liberal "do-gooders" as well as those who assume they are worthless. There are just so many aspects of this.

tsunami02 5 years, 9 months ago

Thanks jaylee, besides violating 4th amendment rights. After working 2 part time jobs then coming home and taking care of kids, she would relish a month off with someone cooking and cleaning doing all the laundry and taking a break from a hard life. Can't lose her jobs if she is in treatment. or her kids. State funded vacation......

tsunami02 5 years, 9 months ago

programs are out there are for people to use not abuse. there are people out there not looking for a free ride, but genuinely need a little help along the way. Don't stereotype because of a few bad apples. or take away their civil liberties. this is supposed to be the united states. not Iran or russia. Does the constitution mean nothing anymore.

littlelawrencian 5 years, 9 months ago

Wonder how many of the politicians could pass a drug test? And shouldn't this somehow include alcohol? I have seen much abuse of alcohol among those on public assistance. This can affect the homelife of children just as badly as any other drug so where do they draw the line? Should they do instant testing like that on the folks down at the Shelter? They would have to send most away if so. One more way for Big Brother to infringe on the privacy of the citizen. By the way, I know some folks on public assistance due to disability and they don't do any illegal drugs, even if they wanted to, how could they possibly afford to? They only get enough to exist on not really live on so don't go getting so high and mighty about all this public support money going to drugs, alcohol is much cheaper.

DreamWarrior 5 years, 9 months ago

Many politicians wouldnt pass a drug test but they want to pick on the poverty level to make themselves look good. Ive worked for over 10yrs at the same job...and NOW on assistance and feel i have every right to be on it as i care for my child just as the next one who has been on it for years and not trying to better themselves. To me this is being prejudice to someone needing help, i would feel better if they started screening the ones in office, AND the ones that have been on the welfare system for YEARS and still are not working. I dont do drugs, but the idea to be tested is demeaning. Wonder how they are going to decide who gets tested? Seems like the rich arent getting the bonuses that they are accustomed to and are going to take that out on the poor. not right.

Jaylee 5 years, 9 months ago

tsunami02 (Anonymous) says…

"Thanks jaylee, besides violating 4th amendment rights. After working 2 part time jobs then coming home and taking care of kids, she would relish a month off with someone cooking and cleaning doing all the laundry and taking a break from a hard life. Can't lose her jobs if she is in treatment. or her kids. State funded vacation……"

i missed you on this one? sorry.

georgeofwesternkansas 5 years, 9 months ago

This question brought the drug users and flakes out. Any really good job, at a really good company requires random testing, it is just part of the deal.

There is no free lunch.

tsunami02 5 years, 9 months ago

he point is, people will always find a way to abuse the system

Darrell Lea 5 years, 9 months ago

If this idea sticks, I feel that the only logical next step is to have anybody receiving a tax refund or rebate be subjected to random drug testing. Maybe anybody applying to renew their driver's license should have to whiz in a cup. Perhaps we should simply require random drug testing to maintain one's status as a US citizen.

Yeah, that's the ticket...

Personally, I'm so clean these days I could sell my own urine for $$$ - guaranteed, but the idea of ANY drug testing, for employment or public funds, is absolutely repugnant to me.

Down with Big Brother!

camper 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm surprised by the vote tally. Shows you how much I know. I thought the many would oppose it because it is added governmental spending of about 800k (hardly a conservative cause), and seemingly counter to ones civil liberties or constitutional rights.

I'm curious to know what brought this on all of a sudden. Did some event happen that caused lawmakers to desire another law on the books? I don't feel too strongly about this issue, but nevertheless I don't think it is very sound.

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

"So, I can only assume that you would accept abortion as a solution if you are okay with removing a person's source of income based on their becoming pregnant?"

Not at all. I'm in favor of personal responsibility. Birth control is available in many forms. If you're receiving welfare and already have a child or two and are irresponsible or stupid enough to get pregnant again when you can't provide for the first two on your own, there should be repercussions.

"While I agree that the Octo-mom's conduct was irresponsible and dispicable, to support the idea of throwing her in jail based on here irresponsibility is a viewpoint that puts a great deal of power with the State.

Apparently you favor a police state, jaywalker"

Not at all. And I certainly don't want to HAVE to give more power to the State. But like I said above, there need be repercussions. Actually, in Octo-mom's case I think she needs a lengthy stay at Bedford Hills. But six kids and she's on welfare, and then spends how much to have more children she already can't afford? Such action should be punished. Falsify or don't pay your taxes and one is subject to prison time, so what's so wrong about imposing the same on someone who perverts the system like that? She is in effect stealing. Parents are jailed for negligence and abuse all the time, how could her case be considered any differently? Gross negligence toward the well-being of her children? Hers is an extreme case, but the subject of poor, single mothers having multiple children while living off the state has been a rampant discussion here in Atlanta for some time now.

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

"actually jaywalker, i'm pretty sure the argument was about the legitimacy of a tax-funded system being employed to weed out a small number of those using tax-payers' dollars, solely based on the accusation that if you are poor, you use drugs instead of feeding yourself and family?"

Actually, Jaylee, I'm pretty sure the argument I was referencing was the one I was referencing.

HermioneElliott 5 years, 9 months ago

There is a lot of prejudice against those on assistance. You could cite cases both ways. I don't think there is an answer to this. What is there about having a job that just makes people mean? The real problem as I see it is that far left liberals are using those on assistance and in the shelter to further their own agenda. Talk about what you have to do to get money! I don't think they want people to get off assistance or get off drugs. Because then they wouldn't have anyone to feel superior to. This whole thing has come about because of laziness and sloppiness on both sides of the equation. It is not going to change. The people who have gotten jobs and homes have done so in spite of the "help". They don't have a lot of children and they are not afraid of work.

buttsqueek 5 years, 9 months ago

I say we random test all people. we should send cops to randomly knock on front doors just to see if there is any thing suspicious going on. why should what is in your house have more protection than what is in your body... Heck who knows maybe we can even make the gays wear pink triangles, and the jews....

Practicality 5 years, 9 months ago

Well said jaywalker. I have been arguing with these baffoons on the other thread as well. Personal responsibility is too big a concept for Jaylee.

Apparently, Jaylee believes it is ok for individuals to have all the control over the decision to bring children into this world but none of the financial responsibility of caring for those children.

JayCat_67 5 years, 9 months ago

Does this mean that any employee of a company receiving a bailout is subject to these tests as well? I'd love to be the guy standing at some dude's mansion with a cool little badge... "Yes Sir, pi$$ police. Come with us please."

JayCat_67 5 years, 9 months ago

As far as the test being truly random, about the only way you could do it is to get people as the come into receive their benefits. But even then, the "offenders" would have an idea that they would probably get tested and have a chance to "prepare". Yes, drug tests can be defeated especially with a little warning. There are publications out there that offer instructions and products to help do just that. So what then, do agents come to the door and demand a sample right then and there? Can they demand to be let in without a warrant or probable cause? Or will they have a portajohn on a trailer? Will they have to observe (a wonderful experience for the females, isn't it army chick? Just keep that cup above the rim of the toilet) I don't know. I hate the idea of druggies on welfare as much as anyone, but once we start down this road, how long before the urine unit has an excuse to turn up on anyone's door step?

Fishman 5 years, 9 months ago

By the JW calculations I'd say 68% of the people responding to this question don't do drugs, 28% do drugs, and 3%(I know it doesn't add up to 100%, but that's what it says right now) are so damn blasted reading this that aren't sure what the he** they're reading!

Jaylee 5 years, 9 months ago

jaywalker (Anonymous) says…

"“actually jaywalker, i'm pretty sure the argument was about the legitimacy of a tax-funded system being employed to weed out a small number of those using tax-payers' dollars, solely based on the accusation that if you are poor, you use drugs instead of feeding yourself and family?”

Actually, Jaylee, I'm pretty sure the argument I was referencing was the one I was referencing."

AAAAAAAACTUALLY jaywalker, you were making the issue of this article about something completely different and i was steering you back on track but you want to avoid the actual issue going on.

Practicality (Anonymous) says…

"Apparently, Jaylee believes it is ok for individuals to have all the control over the decision to bring children into this world but none of the financial responsibility of caring for those children."

moving past your incorrectly imposed thought process, im trying to understand you. rather than help people in need, whatever the reason may be, you would condemn many individuals to classification as a 'druggie' based on the actions of a few individuals? and rather than observing a flawed proposition and saying "hey, we could do better!", you would have us move forward into eventual disaster?

this law will not make these few change in any other way than to obscure themselves further from its reaches.

seriouscat 5 years, 9 months ago

“What is your point? That we have all these poor, upstanding, law-abiding, pot-smoking welfare recipients? If they have the time to get high or buy pot for themselves or others to get high, then they don't deserve welfare. If they add booze to their ensemble of drugs to take or switch to booze exclusively, that is their problem — not the tax payers.” My point was to highlight yet another reason why this policy will be ineffectual at its stated goal; to prevent people who are receiving public assistance from abusing drugs. “I know that the Declaration of Independence mentions a person's right to “the pursuit of happiness”, but the founding fathers never translated that into our Constitution to where tax payers would be required to fund someone else's drug addictions.” Well do you know what the Constitution says? Because there’s all kinds of stuff in there about the right not to be subject to unlawful search and seizure. Something which I think most reasonable people would include a supervised random drug test for no other reason than that you are under the unfortunate circumstance of having to receive public assistance.

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

"aaaaaaaactually jaywalker, you were making the issue of this article about something completely different and i was steering you back on track but you want to avoid the actual issue going on."

Granted it was a digression or a divergent path, but I wasn't the one who brooched ( or is it 'broached'?) the subject. And it's not that I want to 'avoid the actual issue going on', I'd just commented ad nauseum (as you know) on the other string and was eager to opine on something different :<)

tin 5 years, 9 months ago

If you don't want to wee wee in the bottle then GET OFF WELFARE. Pretty simple.

If you don't have money for food then you don't have money for drugs, and I don't want my money going to support somebody's drug habits.

jaq 5 years, 9 months ago

What is wrong with you people? Seriously!!! So anybody who receives any kind of subsidy from the government should be forced to take a drug test, huh? So all of you who might have received any kind of tax credit towards a house or a hybrid vehicle, should you be forced to take a test? Once the government starts forcing it's citizenry to take medical tests it seems that everyone's civil liberties are at risk.

Practicality 5 years, 9 months ago

Encouraging spending in benficial items by giving tax breaks for hybrid cars and buying homes is not that same as taking tax dollars from hard workers and giving it to people to buy drugs.

So I ask you, what is wrong with you JAQ?

Bring on the test, I have taken many of them.

Christine Anderson 5 years, 9 months ago

I am sick of those of you who think that a person on welfare automatically is doing drugs. Why are so many assuming that? I don't think anyone should do drugs, welfare or not. But the prevailing assumption here is that if you are getting assistance, surely you are a drug-doing, lazy, good-for-nothing. I know of a person with two minor kids still at home. Yep, she has a sex life-a PROTECTED sex life, because she knows she couldn't support another child. This person used to work a profession which took years to get licensed in. Guess what happened? The second child turned out to have such a profound disability that every time she does get a job, she loses it due to attendance problems. NOT because she's lazy. It's because she gets calls from her child's school asking for someone to come and pick up the child due to behavior. Those of you who assume all welfare recipients are worthless people are a-holes. You have no idea what kinds of unthinkable things can happen in a person's life to bring them to that point.

Hoots 5 years, 9 months ago

People keep talking about rights here. I don't remember the Civics lesson in grade school that stated the unalienable right to do illegal drugs and to have the good tax paying public fit the bill. Did I miss something or have they added some new rights to the Bill of Rights or changed the Constitution since I was in the 5th grade?

Hoots 5 years, 9 months ago

I'll pee in a cup anytime someone wants to give me a few hundred bucks...no questions asked.

Practicality 5 years, 9 months ago

I haven't seen many people advocating that people on welfare are ALL "good-for-nothing, drug-doing, or lazy". We just don't want to pay people to do drugs. Simple test will help to eliminate that.

Welfare isn't the issue. Buying drugs with Wellfare money is.

notyourmom 5 years, 9 months ago

For a moment can we discuss the issue of "daddy"? Most people who are on assistance are single mom's with deadbeat ex's. If the men in this society would step up to the plate and care for their offspring then most women could afford to work. But, being a single parent who has to pay daycare for her children while she works, can sometimes make more money on welfare than she can at a job. If we are discussing eliminating a woman's constitutional right to be protected from illegal search and seizure, and eliminating her right to have control over her body (forced birth control) why don't we discuss eliminating a man's right to be Johnny Appleseed with no reproductions? Or, hold on boys, here’s one I know your going to hate, perhaps we should take stronger action to force men to pay for the children they HELP make.

After that discussion, can we talk about making rehab available to people with addictions? I have known people who know they have a problem and want help but can’t get it because there are no beds in local facilities.

Or mental issues? It’s not uncommon for people with mental issues to self medicate with illegal drugs since legal drugs are so much harder to come by.

This legislation is like putting a finger in a failing dam, or putting a band-aid on a symptom but not treating the real problem.

Lawrencenativechick 5 years, 9 months ago

to misplacedcheesehead - the system is intended for persons going thru hard times ie; your friend with 2 small children. Unfortunately the majority are abusing it. The scams are unbelievable.

Practicality 5 years, 9 months ago

Notyourmom I agree that it will probably be too easy to get around the legislation when it comes to fruition, but that is about all I agree with.

Again, if you want to make this an issue about wellfare and all the above scenerios that could result in one being on wellfare, we can. BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING.

This was about people who recieve public assistance who are also using drugs. I don't see how a Urinalysis, which I have taken numerous times, is a violation of anyones right.

In your above statement concerning the scenerio about making fathers pay for their children, I am fine with that as well. But maybe, some of these guys that people are choosing to reproduce with, were not a very wise choice to begin with. Maybe we could have a taxpayer funded panel to point out all the loser guys before people CHOOSE to reproduce with them.

Again, I will close with this, if someone needs public assitance because they have fallen on hard times, I am fine and glad that it is available for them. But, it should be used to get back on one's feet, not to buy drugs with. Drugs screw up the home life of everyone living in the home.

If you want me to be responsible, after the fact, for other peoples poor decisions, I would like a say in the poor decision before it is made.

Practicality 5 years, 9 months ago

notyourmom says, "After that discussion, can we talk about making rehab available to people with addictions? I have known people who know they have a problem and want help but can’t get it because there are no beds in local facilities."

Again, I suppose these rehabs are now my responsibility to fund as well. Sounds like another bad decision to start using drugs to begin with. Was I consulted prior to these individuals CHOOSING to use drugs? I think we all know the answer to that.

I do feel sympathy for the children growing up in any house where the adults continue to use drugs. Maybe that is the idea of the legislation. To identify these households where irresponsible parents are using their limited funds to purchase drugs while their kids do without. I do know plenty of people who said they were on some form of public assistance who posted earlier had no problem peeing in a cup. It sounds like they are not the ones who are taking advantage of the system. I am just concerned with the ones that are and especially getting their kids out of a dysfunctional lifestyle.

tin 5 years, 9 months ago

I think this new policy falls in line with the current political atmosphere were government wants to control business and peoples life's.

Freedom will soon be a thing of the past, glad I'm old enough to have enjoyed many years of true freedom, before we lose it.

Jaylee 5 years, 9 months ago

notyourmom, not that i agree with anything you said in your last post, but let me reprimand you on your "daddy" issue. i don't know the numbers or really care, either way this sounds like a personal issue to me.

and i take it personally, being a new father in a very difficult position, but making difficult choices and sacrifices so that i can not only support, but be with my daughter most of every day.

if you have ex-, daddy, or male issues, vent them in some other way than to denounce all fathers in struggling families cause you obviously don't know all of us.

jafs 5 years, 9 months ago

Practicality,

I will try one last time to educate you about our Constitution.

The right that is involved is our 4th Amendment right to be protected from "unreasonable search and seizure".

Forcing someone to give their urine (a substance formerly inside their body) to be tested without probable cause is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

What could be more personal than bodily fluids?

Is it ok for the government to enter your house to look for possible illegal activity without any probable cause to believe that it is taking place?

What about random stop & search of cars on the road?

The founders were concerned with protecting individuals from the intrusive power of the government.

I don't know how to state it any more clearly for you.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.