Orrin Hatch: Drug Test The Unemployed - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

BigDeanEvans · 06-22-2010, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

If this is about welfare, it's even worse.

I won't go into the ethical and logical details as they will fall on deaf ears for the most part. But basically the welfare system is meant to help people who have an obvious history of making poor choices, that's why they are broke. Expecting people with that history to live up to a higher standard (your standard in this case) makes no logical sense.

It's like running a drug rehab clinic and never letting people come back as soon as they relapse. How on Earth did a drug addict use drugs again...it's shocking!!!

How did someone who is broke and destitute make a bad decision?? I figured all homeless people where perfect.

So if a mother goes out one weekend and smokes a joint, her kids are the ones who end up getting punished when the checks are cut off. Think what you want of that woman or her kids, but that's the reality. Welfare and food stamps do pay for a lot of kids to eat despite the abuse of the system. Any social program will have it's fair share of waste but that's the cost of living in a society. This "every man for himself" mentality is how they live in third world hell holes and you can see how they do.

I wouldn't strip their checks for marijuana, but if they test for crack cocaine or heroin meth etc., then yes, they need to be investigated. People are not known to be weekend crack smokers

mynameisjim · 06-22-2010, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDeanEvans

I wouldn't strip their checks for marijuana, but if they test for crack cocaine or heroin meth etc., then yes, they need to be investigated. People are not known to be weekend crack smokers

True. I guess my argument would be that someone addicted to crack or meth is DEFINITELY not going to be able to stop, especially without the funds for treatment.

I guess that begs the question that maybe instead of cutting off checks, we should offer rehab for those that test negative and they have to comply to keep receiving checks. I feel that is still wrong ethically, but at least it's a compromise I think both sides can live with.

bdld · 06-22-2010, 10:53 PM

this should become a national law.

Amputate Your Head · 06-22-2010, 10:58 PM

I think it's retarded at the highest level. What people put into their own bodies is no ones damn business, unless they are in a position that clearly requires them to remain clean. i.e. pilots, drivers, etc.... the unemployed are in no position at all. I would tell them to shove their unemployment up their collective ass. (not that I've ever received a dime of unemployment in my life, but I've sure as hell paid into it.)

GatorB · 06-22-2010, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls

Once again the party that claims they want govt out of peoples lives wants to pass laws for more govt intrusion. Fucking hypocrites.

Exactly where is the money for testing going to come from? Aren't the republicans already bitching about deficits.

baddog · 06-22-2010, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Exactly where is the money for testing going to come from? Aren't the republicans already bitching about deficits.

How about the money that would be saved as a result?

GatorB · 06-22-2010, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

How about the money that would be saved as a result?

savings come LATER. Money for testing needs to come from somewhere FIRST. If Republicans cared about savings that come later they wouldn't be bitching about "obamacare" now would they? I mean since it's going to REDEUCE the defict by 1.3 trilion later.

mynameisjim · 06-23-2010, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

How about the money that would be saved as a result?

Denying benefits isn't saving money. So you have drug tests to catch people taking drugs then you use the money you no longer give them to pay for more drug tests. Does that make sense?

You know, it's not all bad people who get addicted to drugs. It happens to everybody across all races and socioeconomic lines.

But why don't we drug test everybody. If you call the fire department and they save your house from burning down you get a drug test. If you fail they send you a bill for saving your house. All government assistance should have a drug test attached to it. Or is just the government assistance you happen to be lucky enough not too need?

It makes no sense and has no benefit to push people near the bottom of our society even lower. Nobody wins and it widens the divide between the haves and the have-nots.

BlackCrayon · 06-23-2010, 04:54 AM

Drug testing strips away freedoms. Do you people think those on welfare are living the good life? Shit, here in Canada they don't even get enough to cover rent, electric bills, etc. I don't know how they get by really. My girlfriend works for social assistance and you get to see a lot more. The only people who get any real money are those foreign people with like 10 kids. If you don't have a shitload of kids you won't be able to survive on welfare alone. There are many people on social assistance that don't even have a residence because they can't afford it, yeah plenty are addicts too but even if they weren't 1000 bucks a month won't get you shit here in Ottawa (most don't even get that much).

I would never work a job that required drug testing regardless if i did drugs or not. It just seems very nazi-like.

Quagmire · 06-23-2010, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurrrsianPussyKat

You can only buy so many solid gold guns!

If you get welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc.. you should have to pass a piss test.

A lot of jobs require one. There's no reason the gov't shouldn't for a handout.

I'm not arguing the logic of drug tests for people who are taking social assistance of some sort, I'm just curious how much cash actually remains in the system.

The low-level dealers piss their money away on bling locally, buying cars, being all pimp, etc. But they have to get their drugs from somewhere and it isn't free. I wonder what that percentage is.

Grapesoda · 06-23-2010, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Do we get to drug test senators and congressmen too?

How about bankers and CEOs that have received government aid and bailouts?

great fucking idea there for sure... hold these pricks accountable for their behavior's, they don't mind running our lives however they don't hold to the standards they set for us.

Fletch XXX · 06-23-2010, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDeanEvans

I wouldn't strip their checks for marijuana, but if they test for crack cocaine or heroin meth etc., then yes, they need to be investigated. People are not known to be weekend crack smokers

frome the article:

Quote:

A project in Michigan demonstrated that reality. "A decade ago, Michigan implemented mandatory testing in three welfare offices. Out of 258 new and continuing applicants tested, 21 tested positive for illicit substances. All but three of these women tested positive for marijuana only. In light of such experiences, few states have chosen to pursue similar efforts," said Pollack.

Medical marijuana, meanwhile, is legal at the state level for nearly half the American population. Drug testing could punish patients who are legally following state law and their doctors' recommendations.

NikKay · 06-23-2010, 06:40 AM

How about taking the money it would cost to implement mandatory drug testing and spend it on the children of the people on welfare so we can break the cycle for the next generation???

Nikki_Licks · 06-23-2010, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Do you think the government should interfere further in peoples lives by drug testing anyone on welfare or receiving food stamps?

It doesn't seem so far fetched beings a politician benefits from it.

It won't be long before they drug test individuals in order to get a Drivers License.

Amputate Your Head · 06-23-2010, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikki_Licks

It doesn't seem so far fetched beings a politician benefits from it.

It won't be long before they drug test individuals in order to get a Drivers License.

They've tested commercial drivers for decades. It's time they started testing the rest of the users of the road. Regularly.

Tom_PM · 06-23-2010, 07:57 AM

Mister Hatch personifies the long-term politician who is 100% corrupt and useless to anyone but moneybags. He can step off.

SykkBoy · 06-23-2010, 09:51 AM

There would definitely be more money spent on the drug tests than would save in denying someone for drugs in their system.

As was stated before, we need to get these people actual help and the money spent on drug testing could be better spent on education and rehabilitation programs for these people AND their children.

Welfare should be handled differently than unemployment because with the latter, those people have actually paid into the system.

Not all unemployed people are deadbeats either. Take Nevada for example...we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation right now...a lot of these people have worked their asses off for years, lost their jobs and there are no new ones for them. So, say Danny the Poker Dealer gets laid off and collects his due unemployment...should he have to sell off everything else he owns just so he can appease someone who feels he's leeching their money? What if his kids already had an Xbox...does he now have to sell this item? Should he be forced to add this type of humiliation to that which already exists from being unemployed in the first place? Does he now need to be forced to live in total poverty just so he can get some assistance?

I love hearing stories about "women in Lexus or BMWs driving down to pick up their welfare checks". While this might happen or have happened, it is always always the exception, never ever the rule. As someone who's spent time helping out in shelters and assisting the poor and elderly, I can tell you first hand, this is often a bullshit story that a friend of a friend told someone's friend. yeah, I know, crazy me, actually being down in the trenches and assisting the less fortunate. Actually working/volunteering amongst these people and getting the real stories. I'm not saying abuse of the system doesn't exist, it certainly does...but should those who truly need it be punished because of the very few who do abuse it?

As for gas station chicken being bought with foodstamps...who cares where they buy their food? It is still food. It's still going to feed themselves and their families...

Fletch XXX · 06-23-2010, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SykkBoy2

As for gas station chicken being bought with foodstamps...who cares where they buy their food? It is still food. It's still going to feed themselves and their families...

I guess since i mentioned the comic value of fat women buying gas station chicken this is aimed at me, for the record I dont care where they buy food, however, in the old days food stamps could only be used for real food, (milk, eggs, bread, etc...) not *fast food* - i wont go into the health arguments LOL not to mention the cost is way high for fried chicken and not store bought meats. The $15+ they spend on a 12 piece, could be spent better buying real food at a store.

I didnt say they shouldnt be allowed, to, I just think its funny seeing the "now accepting " debit welfare card signs at fast food places like gas station fried chicken. LOL

Nikki_Licks · 06-23-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

They've tested commercial drivers for decades. It's time they started testing the rest of the users of the road. Regularly.

Kinda what I was getting at, "local drivers" not persons that have a CDL and it will come at the cost to the consumer ;)

SykkBoy · 06-23-2010, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

I guess since i mentioned the comic value of fat women buying gas station chicken this is aimed at me, for the record I dont care where they buy food, however, in the old days food stamps could only be used for real food, (milk, eggs, bread, etc...) not *fast food* - i wont go into the health arguments LOL not to mention the cost is way high for fried chicken and not store bought meats. The $15+ they spend on a 12 piece, could be spent better buying real food at a store.

I didnt say they shouldnt be allowed, to, I just think its funny seeing the "now accepting " debit welfare card signs at fast food places like gas station fried chicken. LOL

I understand your point...it is pretty funny, and I also understand your point about the price difference, but this is also where education can come into play. Offer courses to low income people on how to eat healthier on a low budget. teach them some cooking skills to prepare the food. The cost of that alone would repay itself many times over.

ThunderBalls · 06-23-2010, 11:06 AM

A project in Michigan demonstrated that reality. "A decade ago, Michigan implemented mandatory testing in three welfare offices. Out of 258 new and continuing applicants tested, 21 tested positive for illicit substances. All but three of these women tested positive for marijuana only. In light of such experiences, few states have chosen to pursue similar efforts."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_620908.html

ottopottomouse · 06-23-2010, 11:24 AM

With the fast food v. buying ingredients - free money is very easy to waste without any thought. It's only similar to here where benefits used to be collected from the post office and quite often next door to a post office there would be a bookmakers. Seen countless people come straight out of the post office and put the weeks money on a horse.

docputer · 06-23-2010, 11:25 AM

I don't know if this is US nationwide, or just in my state, but if you are convicted for any drug related crime, be it possession or sales, you can no longer obtain food stamps, general assistance(welfare), public housing, student loans, etc. I don't think it pertains to unemployment as that is an insurance type program.
Also, anyplace that is selling hot food on food stamps can get in trouble with USDA. I know one of the local supermarkets got busted selling hot items from the deli on food stamps, and they got a 30 day ban from the food stamp program. Losing food stamp business for a month about killed them.

mountainmiester · 06-23-2010, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

From an economic standpoint, who cares if people use it to buy drugs. The point of unemployment benefits is to keep that money flowing into the economy. Drug money is eventually used to purchase legitimate goods and services which are taxed.

The point of unemployment benefits is to provide relief so they don't loose their house, their car etc, and in doing so, prevents a ripple effect that causes other issues in the economy.

Close your jar of Vaseline and put away the bong, you need to get back and get your G.E.D.

mynameisjim · 06-23-2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainmiester

The point of unemployment benefits is to provide relief so they don't loose their house, their car etc, and in doing so, prevents a ripple effect that causes other issues in the economy.

Close your jar of Vaseline and put away the bong, you need to get back and get your G.E.D.

You do realize you supported my statement in your first paragraph. You just said it in a different way but you said the exact same thing I did.

Maybe you're the one who needs to put away the Vaseline. Whatever that means.

BFT3K · 06-23-2010, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SykkBoy2

There would definitely be more money spent on the drug tests than would save in denying someone for drugs in their system.

As was stated before, we need to get these people actual help and the money spent on drug testing could be better spent on education and rehabilitation programs for these people AND their children.

Welfare should be handled differently than unemployment because with the latter, those people have actually paid into the system.

Not all unemployed people are deadbeats either. Take Nevada for example...we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation right now...a lot of these people have worked their asses off for years, lost their jobs and there are no new ones for them. So, say Danny the Poker Dealer gets laid off and collects his due unemployment...should he have to sell off everything else he owns just so he can appease someone who feels he's leeching their money? What if his kids already had an Xbox...does he now have to sell this item? Should he be forced to add this type of humiliation to that which already exists from being unemployed in the first place? Does he now need to be forced to live in total poverty just so he can get some assistance?

I love hearing stories about "women in Lexus or BMWs driving down to pick up their welfare checks". While this might happen or have happened, it is always always the exception, never ever the rule. As someone who's spent time helping out in shelters and assisting the poor and elderly, I can tell you first hand, this is often a bullshit story that a friend of a friend told someone's friend. yeah, I know, crazy me, actually being down in the trenches and assisting the less fortunate. Actually working/volunteering amongst these people and getting the real stories. I'm not saying abuse of the system doesn't exist, it certainly does...but should those who truly need it be punished because of the very few who do abuse it?

As for gas station chicken being bought with foodstamps...who cares where they buy their food? It is still food. It's still going to feed themselves and their families...

06-22-2010, 10:58 PM	#54
Amputate Your Head There can be only one Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Somewhere else Posts: 39,075	I think it's retarded at the highest level. What people put into their own bodies is no ones damn business, unless they are in a position that clearly requires them to remain clean. i.e. pilots, drivers, etc.... the unemployed are in no position at all. I would tell them to shove their unemployment up their collective ass. (not that I've ever received a dime of unemployment in my life, but I've sure as hell paid into it.) __________________ SIG TOO BIG

06-23-2010, 04:54 AM	#59
BlackCrayon Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ottawa Posts: 19,631	Drug testing strips away freedoms. Do you people think those on welfare are living the good life? Shit, here in Canada they don't even get enough to cover rent, electric bills, etc. I don't know how they get by really. My girlfriend works for social assistance and you get to see a lot more. The only people who get any real money are those foreign people with like 10 kids. If you don't have a shitload of kids you won't be able to survive on welfare alone. There are many people on social assistance that don't even have a residence because they can't afford it, yeah plenty are addicts too but even if they weren't 1000 bucks a month won't get you shit here in Ottawa (most don't even get that much). I would never work a job that required drug testing regardless if i did drugs or not. It just seems very nazi-like. __________________ you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

06-23-2010, 07:57 AM	#66
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Mister Hatch personifies the long-term politician who is 100% corrupt and useless to anyone but moneybags. He can step off. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

06-23-2010, 09:51 AM	#67
SykkBoy Jesus loves bacon Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sin City, Motherfucker Posts: 19,969	There would definitely be more money spent on the drug tests than would save in denying someone for drugs in their system. As was stated before, we need to get these people actual help and the money spent on drug testing could be better spent on education and rehabilitation programs for these people AND their children. Welfare should be handled differently than unemployment because with the latter, those people have actually paid into the system. Not all unemployed people are deadbeats either. Take Nevada for example...we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation right now...a lot of these people have worked their asses off for years, lost their jobs and there are no new ones for them. So, say Danny the Poker Dealer gets laid off and collects his due unemployment...should he have to sell off everything else he owns just so he can appease someone who feels he's leeching their money? What if his kids already had an Xbox...does he now have to sell this item? Should he be forced to add this type of humiliation to that which already exists from being unemployed in the first place? Does he now need to be forced to live in total poverty just so he can get some assistance? I love hearing stories about "women in Lexus or BMWs driving down to pick up their welfare checks". While this might happen or have happened, it is always always the exception, never ever the rule. As someone who's spent time helping out in shelters and assisting the poor and elderly, I can tell you first hand, this is often a bullshit story that a friend of a friend told someone's friend. yeah, I know, crazy me, actually being down in the trenches and assisting the less fortunate. Actually working/volunteering amongst these people and getting the real stories. I'm not saying abuse of the system doesn't exist, it certainly does...but should those who truly need it be punished because of the very few who do abuse it? As for gas station chicken being bought with foodstamps...who cares where they buy their food? It is still food. It's still going to feed themselves and their families... __________________ Support my new movie “The Second Coming”

06-23-2010, 11:24 AM	#72
ottopottomouse She is ugly, bad luck. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 13,177	With the fast food v. buying ingredients - free money is very easy to waste without any thought. It's only similar to here where benefits used to be collected from the post office and quite often next door to a post office there would be a bookmakers. Seen countless people come straight out of the post office and put the weeks money on a horse. __________________ ↑ see post ↑ 13101

06-22-2010, 10:53 PM	#53
bdld $100,000 Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 11,452	this should become a national law.

06-23-2010, 06:40 AM	#63
NikKay Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,642	How about taking the money it would cost to implement mandatory drug testing and spend it on the children of the people on welfare so we can break the cycle for the next generation???

06-23-2010, 11:06 AM	#71
ThunderBalls So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Mesosphere Posts: 2,926	A project in Michigan demonstrated that reality. "A decade ago, Michigan implemented mandatory testing in three welfare offices. Out of 258 new and continuing applicants tested, 21 tested positive for illicit substances. All but three of these women tested positive for marijuana only. In light of such experiences, few states have chosen to pursue similar efforts." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_620908.html

06-23-2010, 11:25 AM	#73
docputer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,103	I don't know if this is US nationwide, or just in my state, but if you are convicted for any drug related crime, be it possession or sales, you can no longer obtain food stamps, general assistance(welfare), public housing, student loans, etc. I don't think it pertains to unemployment as that is an insurance type program. Also, anyplace that is selling hot food on food stamps can get in trouble with USDA. I know one of the local supermarkets got busted selling hot items from the deli on food stamps, and they got a 30 day ban from the food stamp program. Losing food stamp business for a month about killed them. Last edited by docputer; 06-23-2010 at 11:28 AM..