Requirement? Pass a Urine Test Before Getting Public Assistance?

rockin'robin

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,431
Reaction score
550
Like most folks in this country, 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 in my case, 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.


So, here is my Question:

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 - doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can
you imagine how much money each state would save if people
had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance
check?
 
That's ridiculous! I never heard of it. It sounds like the Government controls us. Jeeze.. :thumps down:
 
rockin'robin said:
. . . . Can
you imagine how much money each state would save if people
had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance
check?
Click to expand...
Interesting concept. The problem lies with the legal system. I can imagine all the attorney fees that would pile up from recipients that are denied benefits due to positive readings. Also, the cost of administering these tests would be huge, as well as fees for providing transportation and day care services to the testee. I just accept the fact that there are chemical abusers that get government money. Same as there are CEOs that draw huge salaries for dictating all the tasks of running a company that they inherited from Daddy. Life is not always fair.
 
Sosie said:
That's ridiculous! I never heard of it. It sounds like the Government controls us. Jeeze.. :thumps down:
Click to expand...

Far as I am concerned, as long you are on welfare-- you are at the mercy of the government. And they should, so I support the drug-test concept.

However the whole "government controls us" is why I am planning to turn off the lightbulb permanently, so to speak, or be homeless rather than resorting to disability welfare. So far I am independent. :)
 
I don't believe that anyone should have to take a drug test unless the person drives as part of her job, cares for a child, or has another responsibility to others that drug use would effect. I don't see the point in policing average weekend recreational drug users.
 
sallylou said:
I don't believe that anyone should have to take a drug test unless the person.......cares for a child.....
Click to expand...
Trimmed your post a bit. I just wanted to focus on these words you posted. How would you feel if all parents were tested, since they are caring for a child or children, and usually for a much longer period of time each day?
 
In family law, a parent is not tested unless the parent consents (commonly both parents will agree to drug testing in a custody case) or someone convinces the judge that there is evidence that a parent has a serious drug problem (more than casual use). I don't envision a large scale testing program designed to catch casual drinkers or drug users. That's what I intended to communicate.

Plenty of parents drink alcohol while children are in their care. Alcohol is the most commonly abused and socially accepted drug. The drunk mother's SUV crash killing her children and nieces is the tragic result of serious drug use. She chose to drive with the kids in the care without caring about the consequences (typical drug addict behavior). If someone knows that a parent has a drinking problem they should report it to child protective services so that parent can get appropriate treatment and the children can be protected in the mean time. My state has a mandatory reporting law that applies to ALL adults.

I'm not concerned about casual weekend users. I'm concerned about parents with a serious drug problem that impairs their ability to care for a child. These are the people who end up before the courts. The courts are overwhelmed enough dealing with these parents. Hope that makes my comment clearer.
 
sallylou said:
In family law, a parent is not tested unless the parent consents (commonly both parents will agree to drug testing in a custody case) or someone convinces the judge that there is evidence that a parent has a serious drug problem (more than casual use). I don't envision a large scale testing program designed to catch casual drinkers or drug users. That's what I intended to communicate.

Plenty of parents drink alcohol while children are in their care. Alcohol is the most commonly abused and socially accepted drug. The drunk mother's SUV crash killing her children and nieces is the tragic result of serious drug use. She chose to drive with the kids in the care without caring about the consequences (typical drug addict behavior). If someone knows that a parent has a drinking problem they should report it to child protective services so that parent can get appropriate treatment and the children can be protected in the mean time. My state has a mandatory reporting law that applies to ALL adults.

I'm not concerned about casual weekend users. I'm concerned about parents with a serious drug problem that impairs their ability to care for a child. These are the people who end up before the courts. The courts are overwhelmed enough dealing with these parents. Hope that makes my comment clearer.
Click to expand...
I agree with you here. I did not mean to single you out. I was hoping others might jump in.
Weekend users? I was one of those for nearly 40 years! :eek3:
 
rockin'robin said:
Like most folks in this country, 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 in my case, 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.


So, here is my Question:

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 - doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can
you imagine how much money each state would save if people
had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance
check?
Click to expand...

Good point there. One thing.... how are they going to come up with more money for the tests? Never mind.. they can get more money when they drop the drug users. What about those false positive test? I know that eating poppy seed can cause the test to come up postive.
 
rockin'robin said:
Like most folks in this country, 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 in my case, 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.


So, here is my Question:

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 - doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can
you imagine how much money each state would save if people
had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance
check?
Click to expand...

One time there was a talk about requiring welfare moms to do an urine test. Some people thought this was wrong. But I think it is fine because children should not be around drug addicts mom who take their money for drugs... even if the dad is the drug addict, the mom should not be exposing her kids like that. Afterall, their children is the reason they are on welfare. And if they work because of that, then it is good for the kids to be away from their drug addict mom through daycare and school. But if the parents won't work or won't put them daycare or places like that, then they are just plain neglectful and their children should be taken away.

now as far as disability, they should not have to do a drug test.... If their disability prevent them from getting a job then they don't need a drug test to prove their disability. They already given up their privacy rights by exposing their medical record to the gov't to get money anyway.
 
Buffalo said:
Good point there. One thing.... how are they going to come up with more money for the tests? Never mind.. they can get more money when they drop the drug users. What about those false positive test? I know that eating poppy seed can cause the test to come up postive.
Click to expand...

You raise an excellent point there. I can see the potential for lawsuits considering what both Saywhatkid and Sallylou say...

On a personal level, I would find it very offensive if I had to take a drug test if my job didn't require me to care for the the sick or the young or to drive a company car or truck and I've used illegal drugs exactly once in my life. I'd also be very offended if I were required to take one of those tests to get public assistance.
 
deafskeptic said:
On a personal level, I would find it very offensive if I had to take a drug test if my job didn't require me to care for the the sick or the young or to drive a company car or truck and I've used illegal drugs exactly once in my life. I'd also be very offended if I were required to take one of those tests to get public assistance.
Click to expand...
I have had to "prove my innocence" in order to get or maintain a job. It is a somewhat humiliating experience for me, because I have difficulty urinating with someone standing behind me. The drug testing industry has a fear-inducing propaganda machine that drives companies to use their services.
 
souggy said:
Far as I am concerned, as long you are on welfare-- you are at the mercy of the government. And they should, so I support the drug-test concept.

However the whole "government controls us" is why I am planning to turn off the lightbulb permanently, so to speak, or be homeless rather than resorting to disability welfare. So far I am independent. :)
Click to expand...


I am not living on welfare. I do have part-time jobs but my companies didn't require me to take urine or drug tests, only they checked my CORI backgrounds. ;)
 
No problem, saywhatkid. It's good to be clarify what I meant. I worked in this area and others may not be very familiar with it.

I agree that identifying drug addicted parents to protect children is a important societal goal. I just don't think that random drug test of welfare recipients is the way to accomplish that goal. There is nothing about being on welfare that would make a person more likely to have a drug problem than the general population. It's a sad fact that parents identified as drug addicts who do not recover have their parental rights terminated by the state, and those children are cared for and supported by the state foster care system (not federal welfare programs). There are not enough foster families and the states lose good foster families when they adopt the child/children in their care (often a foster family will adopt a group of siblings).

The way drug addicted parents are identified is by reports to child protective services (by a teacher, neighbor, judge or other adult who comes in to contacts with the neglected or abuses children). My state has a mandatory reporting law for children. Any adult who has reason to know of or suspect child abuse or neglect has a duty to report it to the appropriate authorities. Teachers, attorneys and doctors have higher duties (like reporting immediately within a specified time period). When an adult is being neglected or abused, an adult may report this information to the authorities (like family violence between adults). The laws vary among states.
 
They should only have to be tested if they have a criminal record. Otherwise, everybody is made out to be a criminal if they have to be tested for it.
 
rockin'robin said:
Like most folks in this country, 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 in my case, 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.


So, here is my Question:

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 - doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can
you imagine how much money each state would save if people
had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance
check?
Click to expand...



IMHO

I feel they should not be tested for Food assistance or medical assistance..since many of them have children involved.

but as or Cash assistance.. is s different story. only if they are known or have a record. They should be not only tested but also have to prove where the cash assistance is going.
 
Why would you want to allow the government to have more control over people lives! what if someone is on a med's and it a drug use by the wrong people to get high on! The person could lose their check while trying to prove they need the drug for a health issue! We are already losing are rights , I do not want to give the goverment more control over us!
I think your idea is horrible!
 
whatdidyousay! said:
Why would you want to allow the government to have more control over people lives! what if someone is on a med's and it a drug use by the wrong people to get high on! The person could lose their check while trying to prove they need the drug for a health issue! We are already losing are rights , I do not want to give the goverment more control over us!
I think your idea is horrible!
Click to expand...

So you rather to have a druggie to spend our tax money? Freely milking the system to do so...

If they need medication.. Then the system would offer medical before they will offer cash assitance
 
whatdidyousay! said:
I think your idea is horrible!
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, While I have no problem helping those that are genuinely in need. But, remember back then when food stamps were around, some people were abusing food stamps to buy booze and drugs. That's illegal. So what if there are people that are abusing the cash assistance to buy alcohol and drugs?
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top