To p or not to P / that is the Question

[deziloooooo]

mmmm, had a hard decision here, does this go on EE or at political

and then this is a political with out a dounbt...

This really makes A VERY GOOD POINT, be sure to read it!








TO PEE OR NOT TO PEE.



I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes& 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 BUTT----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?

I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!


Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all
will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country - AND
SOON!


P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!

[billisonboard]

Mar 3, 2011 22:21:45 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

... the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit..

...

The government distributes my taxes as our elected officials determine.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"! >>>

...why not?

[handyman2]

Well you sure know how to rile the liberal side don't you. I agree that to get a public assistance check you should have to pass a urine test. I can assure you there would be a hue and cry about it. One reason more than we probably think are on public assistance because they cannot pas the drug test given by businesses.

[billisonboard]

Mar 3, 2011 22:47:57 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Well you sure know how to rile the liberal side don't you. I agree that to get a public assistance check you should have to pass a urine test. I can assure you there would be a hue and cry about it. One reason more than we probably think are on public assistance because they cannot pas the drug test given by businesses.

Coupled with increased funding for rehabilitation, I would support drug testing for public assistance.

[Deleted]

I'm pretty sure you could make some $ with this.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< Coupled with increased funding for rehabilitation, I would support drug testing for public assistance. >>>

...out of curiosity, do you feel this way out of a belief that more subsidized rehab is needed?
...or would you view it as a concession to gain enough votes to pass it?

...care to share?

[chiver78]

Mar 3, 2011 23:19:13 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< Coupled with increased funding for rehabilitation, I would support drug testing for public assistance. >>>

...out of curiosity, do you feel this way out of a belief that more subsidized rehab is needed?
...or would you view it as a concession to gain enough votes to pass it?

...care to share?

I'm with bill on this, and I think that more subsidized rehab is needed. we as a society need to admit that addiction (of legal substances as well as illegal ones) afflicts people of all incomes, not just those trust-fund babies and B-list celebrities that hit the news. not everyone can afford the Betty Ford clinic to get their 5th and 6th chances to redeem themselves.

[billisonboard]

Mar 3, 2011 23:19:13 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< Coupled with increased funding for rehabilitation, I would support drug testing for public assistance. >>>

...out of curiosity, do you feel this way out of a belief that more subsidized rehab is needed?
...or would you view it as a concession to gain enough votes to pass it?

...care to share?

I have no doubt that many will test positive. My concern is that simply cutting them off public assistance will move them into the prison system, thus not truly saving us money. Giving them the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves gives us a better chance that we turn them into productive citizens.

[Deleted]

Well if rehab is involved I need to change my answer. You would lose $.

[Loopdilou]

Mar 3, 2011 23:50:50 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 3, 2011 23:19:13 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< Coupled with increased funding for rehabilitation, I would support drug testing for public assistance. >>>

...out of curiosity, do you feel this way out of a belief that more subsidized rehab is needed?
...or would you view it as a concession to gain enough votes to pass it?

...care to share?

I have no doubt that many will test positive. My concern is that simply cutting them off public assistance will move them into the prison system, thus not truly saving us money. Giving them the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves gives us a better chance that we turn them into productive citizens.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< Well if rehab is involved I need to change my answer. You would lose $. >>>

...at first glance, maybe so... but I suppose when you consider that assistance for the adults stop (because would we test dependents?) and a set 30, 60, 90 day program begins (maybe outpatient rehab vs. residential?) accompanied by the subsequent fines levied for the drug convictions, maybe we end up at a net decrease...

[Tennesseer]

So we do drug testing. Urine or hair sampling?

Will the person be frisked prior to entering the bathroom to ensure he is not carrying a clean urine sample into the bathroom? Plenty of ways to keep a urine sample warm.

How about a parent with a very young child who show up at the collection center-parent and child both go into the bathroom and the parent has the child urinate into the cup. Are you really going to separate the parent from the child so that does not occur? What about government liability should something happen to the child separated from his parent?

Will those having to provide samples be subjected to directly observed screenings? That is a collection center employee (acting as an agent of the government) goes into the bathroom with the welfare recipient and watches them urinate into the cup to ensure the sample came from the the person supplying the sample. Would that be an invasion of privacy? The best way to ensure a urine sample came from the welfare recipient is for someone to actually observe the collection.

A lot of questions would need very good answers before anything like this was implemented.

[deziloooooo]

I have to say, I got that opening post about the p or not to P from a friend, to me as a josh actually, and thought hell why not , it's been a slow day here, same basic arguments , a little change might be in order, and never expected such interest and actually so many really feel those who get aid in what ever form are really dogging it and the majority are abusing it. Not really in need of it .

Personally I feel the majority are in need and granted there are many get it also dog it, but isn't that true In ll programs.
What I was surprised about though , when I posted a thread on the $125 Billion, that's BILLION, capitalized I hope you notice, $125 Billion dollars paid out by mistake to people who are not eligible because our system of checks and balances on verification is all shot to hell, screwed up, a mess, no one here made much of a mention, even those who are not the biggest fans of this administration, granted the fraud perpetrated has been with us I am sure since aid has been given , but still , it is his watch, buck stops here, captain takes full responsibility, no excuse sir, sorry , little boobie here, oops, ...yet never a mention by so many , especially the unholy seven as I will call them , with tongue in cheek by the way, with tongue in cheek I swear.

[pappyjohn99]

Will the person be frisked prior to entering the bathroom
Watch with TSA body scanners.

How about a parent with a very young child who show up at the collection center-parent
No children allowed.

Tenn. That was only 2 questions and I came up with solutions in 3 seconds. Got any tough questions?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< no one here made much of a mention >>>

...didn't see it...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< yet never a mention by so many , especially the unholy seven as I will call them >>>

...how do I rank? I'm one of the ones who wants to shut down this faucet at the main valve...
;D

[Tennesseer]

Mar 4, 2011 2:54:34 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Will the person be frisked prior to entering the bathroom
Watch with TSA body scanners.

How about a parent with a very young child who show up at the collection center-parent
No children allowed.

Tenn. That was only 2 questions and I came up with solutions in 3 seconds. Got any tough questions?

Both very bad solutions I might add.

[deziloooooo]

Mar 4, 2011 14:13:25 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< no one here made much of a mention >>>

...didn't see it...

OK, will try to find it and boot it, it's a hell of a story, or I thought so anyway, $125 BILLION...even $ 125 Million would be a bit much, but article said BILLION, THATS BILLION's..sent out fraudulently to those not eligible.

[deziloooooo]

Mar 4, 2011 14:15:29 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

<<< yet never a mention by so many , especially the unholy seven as I will call them >>>

...how do I rank? I'm one of the ones who wants to shut down this faucet at the main valve...
;D

Not even close, you argue very well, makes me think, almost agreeing at times but the seven... {Hope you notice on the smiley, polite, so many I could put up..}

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< Not even close, you argue very well, makes me think, almost agreeing at times >>>

...aww... well, I'll be...

[rovo]

When it comes to chronic drug abuse I prefer the system supposedly used in China.

[ed1066]

A lot of questions would need very good answers before anything like this was implemented.

Yeah, better to just let them buy drugs with their welfare money...

[deziloooooo]

Mar 4, 2011 17:19:57 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

A lot of questions would need very good answers before anything like this was implemented.

Yeah, better to just let them buy drugs with their welfare money...

Yeah you tell em ed , you da man...Rah, Rah, Rah

[ugonow]

IMO,this could be a costly futile venture. The most common form of drug abuse is by legally prescribed drugs. Also, ,can you imagine the p of seniors recieving medicare and medicaid? It would cost a bundle for the lab to sort all that out.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Mar 5, 2011 9:00:04 GMT -5 ugonow said:

IMO,this could be a costly futile venture. The most common form of drug abuse is by legally prescribed drugs. Also, ,can you imagine the p of seniors recieving medicare and medicaid? It would cost a bundle for the lab to sort all that out.

...I gotta heartily agree with you here, ugo...

[pappyjohn99]

An easier solution to the problem is to put a $100,000 cap on welfare benefits. How much of our money do these people think they should get?

[Value Buy]

Mar 4, 2011 2:40:22 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

I have to say, I got that opening post about the p or not to P from a friend, to me as a josh actually, and thought hell why not , it's been a slow day here, same basic arguments , a little change might be in order, and never expected such interest and actually so many really feel those who get aid in what ever form are really dogging it and the majority are abusing it. Not really in need of it .

Personally I feel the majority are in need and granted there are many get it also dog it, but isn't that true In ll programs.
What I was surprised about though , when I posted a thread on the $125 Billion, that's BILLION, capitalized I hope you notice, $125 Billion dollars paid out by mistake to people who are not eligible because our system of checks and balances on verification is all shot to hell, screwed up, a mess, no one here made much of a mention, even those who are not the biggest fans of this administration, granted the fraud perpetrated has been with us I am sure since aid has been given , but still , it is his watch, buck stops here, captain takes full responsibility, no excuse sir, sorry , little boobie here, oops, ...yet never a mention by so many , especially the unholy seven as I will call them , with tongue in cheek by the way, with tongue in cheek I swear.

I am kind of surprised no one here has argued private businesses have no right to disqualify potential employees by failing there drug tests.
It is my understanding, it is quite hard to fire someone for being an alcoholic, now, as it is deemed a disease, and as long as you are not drunk or impaired on the job, you will not be fired, for having a disease.

[Tennesseer]

Many businesses and corporations have employee assistance programs which include in and out-patient treatment for alcohol and drug abuse problems. As long as an employee steps forward and asks for assistance (prior to being notified of a job-required random alcohol or drug screen test (DOT/FAA) or probable cause test) the employee will not be terminated for their abuse problem.

But there are also rules the employee must abide by if they accept the company-paid treatment. They must agree to periodic unannounced drug and alcohol screening. Failure to pass the screening can and will get the employee terminated.

Some employers will allow an employee two bites of the apple when it comes to alcohol abuse. That is if the employee voluntarily steps forward again (prior to being notified they are schedule for a random or probable cause alcohol screen) the employer will pay for treatment a second time. But that is the limit.

There is no second bite of the apple for those abusing drugs. No second round of company-paid treatment for drug abusers.

[billisonboard]

Mar 8, 2011 11:13:39 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

...

I am kind of surprised no one here has argued private businesses have no right to disqualify potential employees by failing there drug tests.
It is my understanding, it is quite hard to fire someone for being an alcoholic, now, as it is deemed a disease, and as long as you are not drunk or impaired on the job, you will not be fired, for having a disease.

The drugs that are tested for are illegal. So the test can be framed as, "Are you engaged in an illegal activity?" We won't hire you if you are.

What makes one an "alcoholic"? In your example, you indicate that the person is not "drunk or impaired on the job". If private use of a legal substance does not impact job performance, why would you even consider firing the person?