Pee in a cup?

[JimmyJoe69]

Normally I am not one to start a thread concerning political or economical issues… but there is a first time for everything. So here we go. A friend of mine texted me one of those popular forwards that seem to be the latest fad in the world of wireless communication. Normally these forwards are jokes, pictures or some other humorous item. But in my opinion this latest one had some merit. It reads as follows “I have to pass a urine test for my job, just as a lot of folks in the U.S. have to do. I work hard and therefore my employer pays me. I pay my taxes and the U.S. government distributes my hard earned tax money as it sees fit. In order to continue to receive a paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test from time to time. I have no problem with this condition. That with which I do have a problem is the distribution of my hard earned tax money to people who do not have to pass a urine test. Shouldn’t a person have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check since I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a major problem with helping someone who is a lazy, drug-addicted freeloader. Can you imagine how much money the government would save if people were required to pass a urine test in order to get a public assistance check?†My question is this… why isn’t this a requirement? Am I being too simplistic? I thought the purpose of a government assistance check was not assist the person, not to support them! I fully understand that in order to test individuals it would cost money. But I would guess that the money saved on the people that fall into the above described category would probably pay for the testing. If I am wrong in this assumption would someone please point out my flawed way of thinking?

[ukerduker]

I think it's a great idea. You want that gov't check? Please piss here.

It will never happen because people will inject a racist angle and kill any measure designed to "improve" the system.

[strickj]

Actually anyone who is convicted of a drug crime forfeits all benefits they may be receiving for life.

[saintsfanbrian]

But, strick, they have to be convicted. How many people are habitual users that never get caught?

In my world welfare would only last 2 years. Once it was gone, you are done. Your social security number is flagged along with finger prints and DNA in order to sign up.

[strickj]

But, strick, they have to be convicted. How many people are habitual users that never get caught?

In my world welfare would only last 2 years. Once it was gone, you are done. Your social security number is flagged along with finger prints and DNA in order to sign up.

Id say very few. If they are methodical users then they will eventually get caught.Their not that bright

Besides,no one is guilty of a crime until they are convicted.So to punish for a crime before that point of time is asinine.

Also to say someone is guilty of using drugs based on a pee cup test that could show signs of a false positive is also foolish.

[molonlabetn]

Id say very few. If they are methodical users then they will eventually get caught.Their not that bright

Besides,no one is guilty of a crime until they are convicted.So to punish for a crime before that point of time is asinine.

Also to say someone is guilty of using drugs based on a pee cup test that could show signs of a false positive is also foolish.

I'd be a whole lot happier if the folks living off of my labor at least were held to the same standard as I, in regard to drug testing.

[Metalhead]

Id say very few. If they are methodical users then they will eventually get caught.Their not that bright

Besides,no one is guilty of a crime until they are convicted.So to punish for a crime before that point of time is asinine.

Also to say someone is guilty of using drugs based on a pee cup test that could show signs of a false positive is also foolish.

Strickj, your sig is awsome lol.

[NuTcAsE]

Well, I'd say let us keep our money and send the pee to the government fed bums.

[Guest Todd@CIS]

Normally I am not one to start a thread concerning political or economical issues… but there is a first time for everything. So here we go. A friend of mine texted me one of those popular forwards that seem to be the latest fad in the world of wireless communication. Normally these forwards are jokes, pictures or some other humorous item. But in my opinion this latest one had some merit. It reads as follows “I have to pass a urine test for my job, just as a lot of folks in the U.S. have to do. I work hard and therefore my employer pays me. I pay my taxes and the U.S. government distributes my hard earned tax money as it sees fit. In order to continue to receive a paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test from time to time. I have no problem with this condition. That with which I do have a problem is the distribution of my hard earned tax money to people who do not have to pass a urine test. Shouldn’t a person have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check since I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a major problem with helping someone who is a lazy, drug-addicted freeloader. Can you imagine how much money the government would save if people were required to pass a urine test in order to get a public assistance check?†My question is this… why isn’t this a requirement? Am I being too simplistic? I thought the purpose of a government assistance check was not assist the person, not to support them! I fully understand that in order to test individuals it would cost money. But I would guess that the money saved on the people that fall into the above described category would probably pay for the testing. If I am wrong in this assumption would someone please point out my flawed way of thinking?

As someone who is subject to random testing, I could not agree more.

And after working in Nashville's housing projects, I can tell you that the welfare rolls would immediately, and drastically, be cut.

[Angus]

Same here, as to random testing. I couldn't agree more about requiring it for the welfare system, the only problem is that the gov't would say it costs too much, and that it would end up corrupt. Instead of actually working at fixing it, they will just make excuses for why it can't be done.

[Im Neero]

That's the longest text message I've ever seen.

[JimmyJoe69]

It was not a text message.... it was a forward. I could forward it to you.

[Im Neero]

A friend of mine texted me one of those popular forwards that seem to be the latest fad in the world of wireless communication.

Hmm, what's a forward? I haven't picked up on this new fad yet.

[Guest abailey362]

I've seen this before, but as it was stated earlier, this would be viewed as racist and profiling. Anyone who wanted to sponser a bill like this would be sterotyping that a lot of people on welfare were pot smokers who would rather sit and get high that get the jobs that are available, or better jobs that would pay more and disqualify them from free checks......almost like a lot of it's true

[Guest Dragonman]

Just think of all the money that could be saved if it were implimented. Of course as said earlier, govt would find some excuse not to impliment it.

[Guest jackdog]

I for one would love to see this testing enacted. If your a lazy drug addict you have no need for my tax dollars. Drug testing has become a standard for gainful employment in virtually every field in this country, why should anyone on public welfare be held to a lower standard than every other working American