With the push to provide greater and more free candy in our area, I’m curious to know why our elected representatives would expect me to pay a portion of some other person’s rent and food that may only allow them to spend a greater portion of their real income (assuming they earn any) on drugs… and may invite the presence of these drugs into our communities.
Seems strange, no?
Very strange. The problem, though, is what they would do if the welfare recipient tested positive. Do you cut them (and their family) off? What if the drug use was a one time thing, rather than being habitual. Welfare isn’t a “zero tolerance” system.
LIberal darling group, could alienate their vote, risk their power as a result.
Great idea-drug testing welfare recpiants. They are using our money. Let drug test college kids as well, they are using our tax dollars.
Perhaps college students who get state sponsored scholarships or in state tution.
@Steve- I don’t buy that it’s all about the votes… they have too comfortable a grasp on power to worry about that.
This, to me, is quite curious, QUITE CURIOUS, INDEED…
By their actions, it would seem as though they support real Evil.
@QtR- As we continue to experience budget pain as a nation, we will have to see Standards enforced on who is entitled to free candy, and just how much. Many states have eligibility criteria for those who live on the public dole, and not dealing and using drugs is a good start. What reasons would any sane person have to oppose this?
Kev, I hate the fact that welfare recipients might use the $$ to buy drugs as much as you do. The problem, though, is that you would have a hard time deciding what to do with the info you get from the drug test. Does a positive test indicate that they’re using? Yes it does. But is use of drugs acutally even illegal? Possession is, distribution is, but use itself is not. Does a positive test mean the use is habitual? Maybe they took a few hits from a friend. It’s easier in the military, of course – you pop positive, you’re gone. As it should be. But in this circumstance, a drug test isn’t going to give you the right info you need to make a good decision. If you have evidence they’re buying drugs, then I’m with you – cut them off. But a drug test, even if it’s positive, just doesn’t get you there. And let’s recall that drug tests aren’t free. Proper chain of custody and useable test results cost money. Not enough bang for your buck.
How bout the welfare $ fluctuates based on drug tests? People get their full amount for a clean test. The get less if they test positive and get even less for consecutive failed tests. Kind of an incentive program.
We absolutely need to drug test welfare recipients Not doing so is outrageous. But let’s not stop there. Farmers in this nation receive millions in tax subsidies and benefits from market controls. We need to test them. The banking industry and oil and gas industries also receive major subsidies and regulatory privileges. I say anyone who works at a financial or energy institution must be tested. Does your firm do contracting work with any governments? Time to start peeing in a cup. Go to public school or have a kid in a public school? Step away from the bong, Mom. But let’s not stop there. Anyone who drives on public streets or use publicly-subsidized transit. Yep. In fact, we clearly need to test everyone. It’ll be one great big pee party. What fun.
You confuse tax breaks with subsidies. Keeping more of your money isn’t the same as receiving other people’s tax money.
@QtR- It’s very simple: If you have evidence they’re buying drugs, then make a criminal arrest. If they pop hot on a drug test, then bye-bye ben-uh-fits. Just like you’re employer doesn’t owe you a job, the tax paying citizens don’t owe anything those on welfare. It’s up to them to stay clean if they want to live with their hand out.
These people should live in fear of a poppy seed bagel.
And with respect to the costs of Drug Testing? Let’s be honest… this would save a LOT of money.
@CO- You’re thinking wrong- if you pop hot, i.e. you have money to spend on drugs, then you don’t need any of my money to pay your rent and food.
@yequalsy- Why do you people always bring up Farm Subsidies? I’m against them too, but do you truly fail to see the difference between manipulating the market price of agricultural goods and paying some worthless dirtbag’s rent and food so he/she can do drugs all day and watch TV?
That’s why I’ve noticed often that people who live in subsidized housing tend to drive nicer cars than I do. Because I have less money for a car because I have to pay full rent.
Yes, we need food to eat, we need farmers to grow the food, we don’t exactly need people to be doing drugs, not working, etc..
The whole thread is dripping with hypocrisy.
steve-o, who repeatedly likes to make arguments about how there is no difference between one gun and another and ridicule assault weapon bans as being based on nothing more than the looks of the gun is here condemning “drug” use while happily smoking and drinking himself. So some drugs are OK, but others aren’t, based on nothing more than your morality or squeamishness, or personal taste / tolerance? Sure, that makes sense.
And what about his constant whining about any perceived attempt by the “libs” to tell us what we can do or can’t do?
kev is equally horrified when the government seems to be stepping in on his ability to run his life the way he wants to, yet now he’s in charge of the morality police when it comes to drug use?
Instead of dreaming up schemes about how to spend more government money doing drug tests with questionable efficacy – here’s a better solution – legalize drugs. That way, there’s no law to bust someone with. Which means a whole lot less government intervention in people’s lives and less spending to boot. Wowza!!
I’d submit that the drugs aren’t really the issue for these gentlemen. It’s people who are poor that rub them the wrong way.
@SpongeJosh- Here’s the really crazy part- I’d love to have all the Drug Laws disappear along with Welfare! I know that there are people living in my “Luxury Condo” who can’t pass a drug test, but guess what? They’re not living out of my pocket.
Any sane person will agree that if a person has extra money to spend on Drugs, then they don’t need public funds to pay for their rent and food. The question remains- Why on earth would anyone be in opposition to this???
Also, we need to be honest about the cost savings that this would produce- spending “more government money doing drug tests” would save A LOT of money that’s currently being wasted on the Virginians who swipe their EBT to pay for their steak and lobster, pull out a wad of cash to pay for their beer, and then text their dealer for a meet-up on their iPhone 5 on their way back to Affordable Housing… before the ice cream melts.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.