Should welfare recipients have to pas...

Should welfare recipients have to pass a drug test?

Posted in the Weird Forum

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“"*" Always Thinking "*"”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

#1 Feb 8, 2013
YES - 76%
No - 24%
I guess that pretty well tells us what "%" of welfare recipients
are on drugs~and~your paying for them (to-be).

“Raising hell since 1989”

Level 6

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#2 Feb 8, 2013
That is total rubbish!
I worked all my life as well as bringing up 5 sons until a couple of years ago, I lost my job due to hypothyroidism, anemia and severe arthritis in my hands. Don't tar everybody on welfare with the same brush. That is typical narrowmindedness of people who think that just because they are lucky enough to be able to work that makes them better people.
The amount of people who work and take drugs is unbelievable. Yes, they pay for their habit but they also put others at risk for being under the influence while operating machinery etc etc.
What if people in receipt of welfare were tested and found positive for drugs? Do you suggest that their money be stopped? Some people turn to drugs to try to escape from something horrible that happened in their past. Something too painful to live with. The loss of a child for example, or horrific childhood experiences. How can drug testing possibly help these people? It won't help them get employment will it?
Realist

United States

#3 Feb 8, 2013
I think Congress & the President should have to pass a drug test. Why the hell not? I've had to take one for every job I've applied for.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#4 Feb 8, 2013
Maliciousness wrote:
That is total rubbish!
I worked all my life as well as bringing up 5 sons until a couple of years ago, I lost my job due to hypothyroidism, anemia and severe arthritis in my hands. Don't tar everybody on welfare with the same brush. That is typical narrowmindedness of people who think that just because they are lucky enough to be able to work that makes them better people.
The amount of people who work and take drugs is unbelievable. Yes, they pay for their habit but they also put others at risk for being under the influence while operating machinery etc etc.
What if people in receipt of welfare were tested and found positive for drugs? Do you suggest that their money be stopped? Some people turn to drugs to try to escape from something horrible that happened in their past. Something too painful to live with. The loss of a child for example, or horrific childhood experiences. How can drug testing possibly help these people? It won't help them get employment will it?
A small part of the idea is punishment-*catching* people who fail a test and then making them homeless to satiate the the crazies in the GOP. But, the TRUE reason behind *testing* is the knowledge that there is HUGE money in poor people. North Dakota wants to charge potential recipients $100 to be tested to qualify for assistance. They seem a little unclear of the concept of people in need. Other states want to bill the deep pockets of the Federal government,with the drug testing contracts (conveniently) going to a favored GOP supporter.

“Maiden of Mayhem”

Since: May 08

OMFUG

#5 Feb 8, 2013
Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:
YES - 76%
No - 24%
I guess that pretty well tells us what "%" of welfare recipients
are on drugs~and~your paying for them (to-be).
I'm guessing you've never taken a statistics course in your life.
Great White Hope

Wakarusa, IN

#7 Feb 8, 2013
Maliciousness wrote: What if people in receipt of welfare were tested and found positive for drugs? Do you suggest that {{{their}}}* money be stopped?

You damn right I do! How'd it get to be {{{their}}}
money? It's my money and I want to keep more of it for myself. Their problems are not my problems.
Don't go using the =old feel sorry for me= approach
that's getting damn old I'm sick of it!

victoria1 if you have proof to the opposite or differing from my opinion that "might be constructive but bad mouthing 'straight' people isn't!

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#8 Feb 8, 2013
victoria1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm guessing you've never taken a statistics course in your life.
That's actually not too far off ... about 30% of Americans receive at least one form of welfare.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#9 Feb 8, 2013
Maliciousness wrote:
The amount of people who work and take drugs is unbelievable. Yes, they pay for their habit but they also put others at risk for being under the influence while operating machinery etc etc.
The important difference being that those who work and do not receive welfare are not relying on taxpayers to subsidize or fund their drug habit...
Maliciousness wrote:
What if people in receipt of welfare were tested and found positive for drugs? Do you suggest that their money be stopped?
Yes, and their kids be removed from their home ... so that they have a chance to break the chain and make something of their life instead of following in their parents footsteps and being druggies on welfare...
Maliciousness wrote:
Some people turn to drugs to try to escape from something horrible that happened in their past. Something too painful to live with. The loss of a child for example, or horrific childhood experiences. How can drug testing possibly help these people? It won't help them get employment will it?
And bank robbers, rob banks because they need money...

Actually, most employers require drug testing before they will hire you. To the extent you are doing drugs, you often times can't be employed. Further, if folks spent the time and money they spent on drugs, buying proper clothing for interviews ... acquiring job training, they would be more marketable and thus more likely to be hired.

I honestly can't even believe it's debatable in terms of whether folks on welfare should be doing drugs. There really needs to be a common sense test before folks should be able to vote...
Level 7

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10 Feb 8, 2013
Maliciousness wrote:
That is total rubbish!
I worked all my life as well as bringing up 5 sons until a couple of years ago, I lost my job due to hypothyroidism, anemia and severe arthritis in my hands. Don't tar everybody on welfare with the same brush. That is typical narrowmindedness of people who think that just because they are lucky enough to be able to work that makes them better people.
The amount of people who work and take drugs is unbelievable. Yes, they pay for their habit but they also put others at risk for being under the influence while operating machinery etc etc.
What if people in receipt of welfare were tested and found positive for drugs? Do you suggest that their money be stopped? Some people turn to drugs to try to escape from something horrible that happened in their past. Something too painful to live with. The loss of a child for example, or horrific childhood experiences. How can drug testing possibly help these people? It won't help them get employment will it?
well mam, you talk out of both sides of your mouth.. I have to take random drug screens on my job, and Im quick to grab the cup and get it out of the way.... ya know?
yes Welfare recipients should lose their funds if found positive.. if they cannont afford to feed the precious life they irrepsonsibly bring into the world,,,what gives you the right to spend ANY money of drugs??
get over your redicuous defense...
MANY people in the workforce drugtest... welfare should as well...

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#11 Feb 8, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>A small part of the idea is punishment-*catching* people who fail a test and then making them homeless to satiate the the crazies in the GOP. But, the TRUE reason behind *testing* is the knowledge that there is HUGE money in poor people. North Dakota wants to charge potential recipients $100 to be tested to qualify for assistance. They seem a little unclear of the concept of people in need. Other states want to bill the deep pockets of the Federal government,with the drug testing contracts (conveniently) going to a favored GOP supporter.
We are all in need, buddy. Some of us just choose to provide for our own needs instead of relying on others to meet them for us (with the obligatory sob story ... my leeever, my leeever ... it prevents me from working)

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#12 Feb 8, 2013
reebie wrote:
<quoted text>
well mam, you talk out of both sides of your mouth.. I have to take random drug screens on my job, and Im quick to grab the cup and get it out of the way.... ya know?
yes Welfare recipients should lose their funds if found positive.. if they cannont afford to feed the precious life they irrepsonsibly bring into the world,,,what gives you the right to spend ANY money of drugs??
get over your redicuous defense...
MANY people in the workforce drugtest... welfare should as well...
How would you feel about a background check to own a gun? If you've got nothing to hide, you could get that out of the way, right?

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#13 Feb 8, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>How would you feel about a background check to own a gun? If you've got nothing to hide, you could get that out of the way, right?
The key difference being Ferr, that you have a constitutional right to bear arms for lawful purposes. You do not have a constitutional right to welfare, in contrast.
The Problem

United States

#14 Feb 8, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The key difference being Ferr, that you have a constitutional right to bear arms for lawful purposes. You do not have a constitutional right to welfare, in contrast.
He seems to think he does.
Heavy Equipment Transport

United States

#15 Feb 8, 2013
Sock Puppet Theater wrote:
<quoted text>Here is a stat, one out of two libtard Canadians are a pain in the azz. Welcome to my azz poser.
It's not like there's no room for a couple hundred Canadians there. Need a lift somewhere?
Linda the lonely widow

Bolingbrook, IL

#16 Feb 8, 2013
NO iNEEDS my check
Level 7

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#17 Feb 8, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>How would you feel about a background check to own a gun? If you've got nothing to hide, you could get that out of the way, right?
Ive got nothing against a background check to own a gun... I think it is a very good idea.... remember,, Im middle fence...
:)

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#18 Feb 8, 2013
reebie wrote:
<quoted text>
Ive got nothing against a background check to own a gun... I think it is a very good idea.... remember,, Im middle fence...
:)
It wasn't so much that as it was how many restrictions of privacy/freedom is the average reichtard willing to put up with as long as the government allows them to have guns? The answer is, there's NO limit! These people equate freedom with guns and guns only. The government can tax and restrict the freedoms of this group and that group and set all sorts of legal precedents for taking away freedoms as long as they don't mess with guns. It's all smoke and mirrors. I used to think: "Why do they let us have guns?!"

Well, because by the time the gun nuts realize they've been had, they will have just figured out they priced ammo (and more guns) out of their hands.

Jesus was purported to say: "That which you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me".

Of course, Jesus had brown skin and didn't speak English...
Nathan Rothschild

Haslet, TX

#19 Feb 8, 2013
fFerrerman wrote:
NO iNEEDS my check
we know, that and topix
indigent crack head pauper

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#20 Feb 8, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>It wasn't so much that as it was how many restrictions of privacy/freedom is the average reichtard willing to put up with as long as the government allows them to have guns? The answer is, there's NO limit! These people equate freedom with guns and guns only. The government can tax and restrict the freedoms of this group and that group and set all sorts of legal precedents for taking away freedoms as long as they don't mess with guns. It's all smoke and mirrors. I used to think: "Why do they let us have guns?!"
The average person with common sense does not view the right to use drugs and live off of taxpayers as a right or freedom. Rather they see it as an abuse of the system.

The government would not be taking away any freedoms by testing those who are welfare. Rather they would be conditioning the receipt of aid on certain terms. A person is free to not accept the aid if they donít like the terms. What could be more free than that?
The Paisan

Huntington, NY

#21 Feb 8, 2013
Yes, believe all welfare recipients should be drug tested (for ILLEGAL drugs). Then they should have to pass a calculus test before they can get a check.

But hey, that's just me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 16 min Jennifer Renee 23,376
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 31 min Real Finn 73,412
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 37 min _Susan_ 21,474
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 37 min Fake News 83,664
News Teens wearing leggings barred from United fligh... 37 min 07 Mustang 1
A to Z songs by title or group! 46 min Billie R 1,251
Gettin put out 54 min Liza 3
Memorable Movie Scenes. 1 hr andet1987 62
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr Sharlene45 213,255
More from around the web