Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What's the DU opinion on drug testing "welfare recipients?"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:21 PM
Original message
What's the DU opinion on drug testing "welfare recipients?"
I am opposed to it for a number of reasons, but I am curious to know what others here think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
badtoworse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. There was a thread on this recently that was extensively posted to
It was within the last week, but I'm too lazy to look for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. The question I asked in that dorky thread: What about the innocent kids?
New orphanages? More Foster homes? No answer from the OP on that.

Maybe think about the children for fuck sake!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. So, you approve of children living in crackhouses?
"New orphanages? More Foster homes?"


Yes. I would much rather see tax dollars go towards innocent children living in better surroundings instead of following in their drug-dealing parents footsteps. The projects are right down the street, actually have friends there and they feel the same way but have to live with their drug-dealing neighbors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. Do all people who fail a drug test live in "crackhouses"?
If there are children living in a "crackhouse", then social services and law enforcement can and should take care of the situation. But to take away the only food, rent money, and healthcare that a family has just because Daddy shared a joint with a neighbor on the back porch is fucking cruel. It's even crueler if Daddy DIDN'T take drugs, and only failed because of a false positive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #39
65. No earthly clue how you
got that out of my post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohheckyeah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #28
40. Sure....
that's what was said. Everyone here would approve of children living in crackhouses. :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #28
45. So all welfare client should be drug tested because there is one
crackhouse in the neighborhood? Why not just get the police to close the crack house down? That is their job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. That wouldn't be any fun! How can you get off feeling superior if you
go through the proper channels?

The Consitution is only a ragged piece of paper, after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. And REHAB!!!
We have so many damaged people, and they drink or use hard drugs. They need to be able to check in to good rehabs. They need to know their kids will be safe while they detox.

These people are NOT the enemy, they are our family.


And frigging legalize marijuana. Get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why don't you throw up a poll?
Personally, I am STRONGLY AGAINST the testing.

I feel it's a 4th amendment violation.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They want to search our blood, tissues and urine without cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Don't have the money to donate
:( Budget cuts in the state...we are getting ready to be poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
67. No worries....I put a poll up for you.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. The REAL question: Can Welfare Pay for Decent Rehab?
Cheaper in the long run. An agenda of saving and repairing broken lives, what a concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #26
66. People who smoke weed on occasion do NOT NEED rehab.
And that's what they'll "catch".

And the REAL question IS a 4th amendment matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terra Alta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm against it.
It's unfair to the poor, and especially to their children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. Banksters were the biggest welfare recipients...Were they tested?...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. +10
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
31. Then their employees, Congress.
And the Koch-Courtisans Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
50. exactly....
....we'll drug test the welfare recipients right after the billionaires....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
littlewolf Donating Member (920 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. locally in public housing ... ie rent is tied to your earnings ...
If you get busted selling / buying / using drugs ... you and your family are out ....

they don't do drug testing ... but like I said ... if you buy drugs ... you and yours
are out of a house ... and that is in the housing rules that you sign ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. What about children? Putting people on drugs on the street will
increase crime rates; putting them in prison will be more expensive.

Do you see the repurcussions of your argument?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
littlewolf Donating Member (920 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
43. it isn't my idea ... it is their policy
if your busted using/selling drugs your housing is the least of your worries ... your will lose your kids .... I guess they are trying to teach people to be responsible ...your bad actions will effect the people you care about in a bad way ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. I don't care what they do with the money, quite frankly, and it would cost
as much to administrate as it MIGHT save, if not more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badtoworse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. In many cases, there are children involved
You're OK with parents buying drugs with money that's supposed to feed the kids?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I'm no more okay with it than I am with non-welfare recipients.
I'm not thrilled that parents use illegal drugs, but that's a criminal matter for the legislatures and law enforcement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. I don't understand the purpose.
What happens if they test positive, then do they get refused services like medical help to beat their addiction? It seems to me that if they can drug test a demographic of the population, then others should be able to be drug tested too, like our Congressional Representatives and Senators, but maybe a Breathalyzer would be more appropriate for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJazz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
9. "welfare recipients" could also be many corporations and others that..
....Sometimes receive money from the Government....farmers, oil companies..etc.
Are going to Test all of them?? ..I think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
41. Test 1 - Test ALL
Would love to see all the large Farmers lines up at the Lab with their Pee Pee Bottle waiting for their Farm suibsidy check
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jemelanson Donating Member (254 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. Opposed to it.
4th Amendment Right against unreasonable search and seizure.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JANdad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. Is this a weekly fucking question now?
Sheesh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Yes, it is a weekly fucking question. I'm in line to post it next week.
You are free to hide it then. I won't be offended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Heywhut?! It's my damn turn next week. Promises were made. nt
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 07:39 PM by blondeatlast
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. : )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
13. Strongly against it.
People on welfare are still entitled to privacy, and frankly, if their life is such that they have to depend on the pittance that welfare provides, I don't care if they're smoking a little weed or whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
15. Totally against it.
Violates 4th amendment. Plus, aren't "welfare recipients" mostly in programs like WIC and TANF- by definitions families with kids? Should the kids starve because mom's a fuck-up?
And if they're getting unemployment insurance then it's their money to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
16. What would be the point unless to punish?
SOmehow, i doubt they would be providing the extensive drug treatment that doesn't exist now for most. Further, what are they going to do, let them starve if they fail testing or treatment (most addicts will--many times--before the successful manage to "kick.").

This would be costly and I agree, a violation of 4th amendment rights. Of course proponents will suggest legislation that requires the recipient to "voluntarily waive" those rights in order to receive the "benefits."

So, the end result, I would predict is a bloated, expensive to administer program, more people thrown off welfare rolls that then may turn to crime in desperation, and thus more crowded jails. Probably some happy sanctimonious RWers who can point to the stats and say "SEE"! Not worth helping these people."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
19. ACLU won a case against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
themadstork Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
57. Good to know.
We already treat those on welfare like trash. . . But this would be beyond extreme. Insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. And yet... there are so many "DUers" who support it.
:nuke:

"MY tax money...." blah blah blah....

Have some tea.... :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
20. Very much in favor of it,
just as soon as we test the politicians that came up with the idea for the same thing.

If they are concerned about Government Money supporting those who may have a drug habit and violating the law, I am equally concerned about those who are elected to office, collect Government Money and may have a drug habit thereby violating the law.

What's good for the goose.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
25. On the face of it
a great idea.

On the slightest amount of reflection, a terrible idea.

But then repubs would never think anything through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
27. Oppose it strenuously.
We didn't drug test the Wall St. Welfare recipients and we gave them an awful lot more money than we give to poor people.

It's a violation of their 4th Amendment rights and it's too bad the question even has to be asked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
29. I'm in favor of a monthly allotment of mary jane being prescribed to all adult recipients
The stress of grinding poverty is hazardous to the health.

Nothing less will do.

Suck on that pill, Rushbo. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
44. I Like That Idea
and I would even go as far combining it with testing for hard drugs.

I see the effects of heroin, crack, and hard drugs constantly. You have to institute means for controlling it, and this could act as a real deterrent. Dealing with the children are an issue, but as another person pointed out, the alternative is deciding to leave kids with parents who are users.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
30. Totally against.
As if it isn't difficult enough to collect support. If we're really going to humiliate the poor, why not start issuing gaberlunzies again, or institute branding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
32. Against - and I hate drugs, don't even drink. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
54. Same here. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
33. FUCK THAT
Just my opinion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
34. Bankers and politicians should get drug tested, not people on welfare
Their actions have FAR more effect on society than welfare recipients.

And I suspect that quite a few decisions made by bankers and politicians were made under the influence, causing suffering for MILLIONS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
35. I oppose it because you can't use those cards to score anything. It's just more waste
to pay for those tests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevebreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
36. I think we should drug test the big recipiants of welfare
The board of GE, Bank America, chase...you get the idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
37. Whoo-boy! We're hitting all the major ones today, ain't we!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
38. Against it!
Reason: This law is targeting specific people, people who Republicans deem as "parasites"

If the rest of us were to allow this to happen it would be a pox on the entire society. Furthermore, it opens the door to "drug test" for the rest of the population.

Sometimes people end up on welfare through no fault of their own....witness our current economy.....all of the people that paid taxes into the system should be able to collect from that system if they ever need it. They should be able to do this without some draconian law hanging over their heads.

By the way...who could guarantee these tests wouldn't be shared with future employers? What is someone is on anti-depressents? Or other medication for a disiese? Medication for epilepsy.....

Nope, this is one door that shouldn't be opened.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
42. The government needs to stay out of people's pee.
I don't even think employers should be able to test people for drugs

But I'm one of them right to privacy ACLU leftists.

Don't snoop in our pee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
46. No. It costs money that should go to the poor. It's a scam for the drug test co's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
48. I'm betting most on DU would be in favor of it.
Heck, most people on DU are in favor of abolishing welfare altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. Wow, really? Did you take the time to read the responses?
Do you want us to take you seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #48
69. Stay out of Vegas, friend.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
49. It's a violation of their constitutional rights, unaffordable (they're expected to pay with what??)
and most of all, it punishes the children in the families who should be receiving it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
51. I'm against it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
53. opposed. opposed with student athletes randomly. opposed with most work environments
mostly opposed to forced testing in all forms. not all forms, but most all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
56. It should stay like it is. Drug testing only if you apply for a job or
work. It isn't fair to poor people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Not all jobs drug test you.
That's your private employer's decision, not the government's decision. If you don't like it, you have the choice of applying somewhere else. Welfare recipients don't have that choice; there's only one option for welfare, and that's the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Any business that gets funds from the government does the test.
Virtually all businesses that you'd make any money working for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
61. It's paternalistic, demeaning, and bigoted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
62. I'm against it n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmahaBlueDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
63. Answer a question with a question: What is this welfare of which you speak?
There is this widespread misconception among a whole huge segment of the population that the government is just handing out cash to layabouts. Nothing could be further from the truth, but let's examine this.

Section 8 (rent subsidy): OK, so we urine screen all applicants for rental assistance. Since we all know that, if they fail, it's unlikely this scenario extends any sort of treatment, the likelihood is that we end up with homeless drug users, who may or may not be able to get access to missions or shelters. I'm supposing that the argument here is that being forced into homelessness will cause these people to see the light, straighten out their lives, get married, and go to church. I'm not seeing it.

WIC: It's food assistance for moms with kids. OK, so we urine screen all applicants. Mom fails. So....we're doing what? Taking the infant and throwing the child in an orphanage? Starving the child? Envisioning some fantasy in which, seeing her starving child crying before her, Mom just kicks that meth habit, straightens out her life, gets married, and goes to church. I'm not seeing it.

LiHEAP and Weatherization: It's assistance with heating bills, and aid for caulking and insulating old houses. In some cases, assistance with replacing inefficient appliances is involved. OK, so we urine screen all applicants. They fail. So,now they are freezing addicts. Their kids freeze too. So... they go to shelters, or leave oven doors open, or run cars in garages. Some die, which probably makes a certain segment of wingnuts happy. Again, I'm supposing that the argument here is that being forced into freezing will cause these people to see the light, straighten out their lives, get married, and go to church. I'm not seeing it.

EBT (or, the program formerly known as food stamps): Off at a tangent - I can never think of food stamps without thinking of the Robert Redford movie "The Milagro Beanfield War", in which a character utters the following line - "Hey, man! You can't buy bullets with food stamps!" But, I digress. Food stamps (which was actually intended to prevent the consequences of malnutrition that made many Americans 4F for the draft in WWII)now come in the form of a debit card that is used at grocery stores and Wal Marts around America. I'm sure you have heard that many stores stay open all night on the 1st day of the month when the cards automatically refill. Again, I'm supposing that the argument here is that being forced into starvation, or forcing their kids to starve, will cause these people to see the light, straighten out their lives, kick cocaine or heroin, get married, and go to church. I'm not seeing it. What I see is starving people who will steal or kill to eat or feed their kids. More crime, and you ultimately pay to keep people in prison.

Many of those who want drug testing for "welfare applicants" are the same clueless bunch who want to solve illegal immigration by "shipping them all back to Mexico." All problems have simple solutions, and the US could implement these simple solutions -- except for those namby pamby crybaby liberals and their activist judges and the ACLU. Many others have an even simpler philosophy - "it's not my problem, and I don't want to pay for it."

So I have a simpler solution. Drug testing for driver's licenses. Bi-annually. It's not pleasant, and it's probably not necessary. However, it's fair. It's fair because the wealthy get tested right along with the poor. Your kid spent all semester at prep school smoking lettuce? Sorry -- he can't drive the Lexus. Maybe next year. What do you mean little Tiffany tested positive for cocaine? Sorry Tiff -- no Miata for your Sweet 16. Too bad. While we're at it, we should probably consider bi-annual physicals for driving, to make certain folks aren't going to have diabetic blackouts or heart attacks behind the wheel. And why stop at vehicles? Boats and personal watercraft -- I don't think the stoned or drunk should be yachting or jet skiiing.

OK, you don't like that one. How about drug testing prior to the receipt of farm subsidies? How about all applicants for federal contracts take drug tests? Perhaps recepients of alternative energy tax credits should provide a sample? Applicants for flood insurance -- there's something you need to do first. Writing off depreciation for that obsolete equipment? For those stock losses? We need a sample first!







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JANdad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. Bravo!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #63
70. 'You cannot add this topic to your bookmark list...'
"...because it is already there."

I clicked it twice, just in case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
68. i think it's a dumb idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC