Urine tests for Welfare

[rusty charly]

You may get this forwarded to you:

"A friend says,

Like a lot of 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, 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 butt and using drugs.

Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?"

---------------------------

"a friend says"... yeah, right. Why don't the people who right this stuff own up to it if their so proud of their Big New Idea?

anywho, here's a email-able response:

"A friend says,

Like a lot of 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, 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 work in the Bush Administration 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 to illegally invade other countries, waterboard, read our private emails, wiretap innocent Americans' phone calls, lie to Congress about attorney firings, secure no contest contract bids for their crony friends, out CIA spies, shoot friends in the face while drunk, create Medicare D, undermine the 9/11 commission, subvert the constitution through signing statements, ban photographing return of coffins of slain American soldiers, ignore the housing mortgage crisis, stack the federal judiciary with unqualified rightwing hacks, gut the Consumer Products Safety Commission, Eviscerate the US Commission on Civil Rights, undermine free speech and the separation of church and state.

Could you imagine how much money the state would save if the Bush Administration had to pass a urine test to get their government check?"

[MrMickeysMom]

1. Can we extend that to all 3 branches of US govt? And while, I"m thinking...

... Can we find out just how much alcohol is consumed by Congress in particular? You know a vote is a terrible thing to waste, wasted.

[rusty charly]

2. i found this, also

"Although I think it is a great idea and would force individuals to either stop using drugs to accept welfare, it is also another expense that would come from taxpayers pockets. The cost to have someone certified to administer the test, the cost of running the actual test, the cost of the implication of a new department to administer the test, and the continuing cost to administer multiple tests could quit possibly add up to more than the cost the individual would even acquire from the welfare system.

The next point is what drugs do they test for? Marijuana is known to stay in a person's system for thirty days, however some substances like cocaine, ecstacy, and heroin are out in as little as three days and some even less. Now would the urine testing only be for illegal drugs or would it also include prescription drugs and alcohol; both of which may interfer with an individuals ability to get a job and stay employed.

So, if it is decided that an individual must only pass one drug test in order to be eligible for welfare then what is to stop them from simply purchasing a masking agent to pass the test or to stop their drug use temporarily in order to qualify. Perhaps the reason that some of the people on welfare can not maintain employment is due to their addiction, then it is moral to deny them the help they need to afford the basic necessities?

I believe that if an individual could be open about their substance abuse or alchol problems with caseworkers or employers, without the fear of being denied benefits or being fired, then more people would be willing to seek help and counseling. I believe that mandatory drug testing, although it sounds nice to say that our tax dollars wouldn't be going to drug dealers, would simply supply an false sense of reality because in reality it would simply end up costing more tax dollars then we are already spending."