Urine or You're Out (you're in or you're out)
 

someone just sent me this, it's not new but it's soooo true:


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 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 title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'

its never been an issue for me but if an employer wanted me to take a piss test I would sue and then quit. I think its a huge invasion of privacy.

Its simply a requirement for the position.. You would not have a penis to stand on.

I'm surprised they don't already do this... Urine testing is HUGE business.

I agree 100%, if you can afford the dope you shouldnt be receiving any gov't assistance,

I guess it would come down to who pays for the test? An employer would pay to have their employees tested, so does the tax payer also pay for welfare recipients to be tested?

they are on welfare for a reason

I agree. I suppose if the guy that earns money gets a urine test, then the guy that gets the welfare check should get a urine test, as well.

I understand but those are two separate issues and you can't start combining them.

The same way they combined drug convictions with receiving financial aid for college. If a kid has any type of drug conviction, he can't get any financial aid for college ( I think they have loosened it a little bit). So if a 17 year old gets caught with a bag of weed, he suddenly is put at a huge disadvantage for the rest of his life.

Is that fair?

If a mother smokes a little weed one weekend then fails a test, should her children now be punished by not receiving any groceries that month? Do you like that kind of retribution?

It's very dangerous when you start combining assistance programs with restrictions based on mistakes people make. The whole concept of public assistance means you will be dealing with people who have a history of making mistakes.

Why would you not want drug testing and if someone fails, they are given access to drug and alcohol counseling. Why is your first instinct to just cut them off so they become even more of a burden on society with no chance of recovery?

America is already becoming a place where nobody wants to help anyone out. The idea of insuring poor children has people bringing guns to town hall meetings and yelling and screaming about socialism. We don't need any more programs that continue us down that road of selfishness.

:thumbsup