Jump to content

Our Official NAGF Flags

are now available in the NAGF Online Store in TWO Sizes! Don't miss your chance of being one of the first to fly the new high visibility NAGF Flag!!!

 

Click Here To Go To the NAGF Online Store!!!

 

Snag_1ffcf50.png

NAGF Admin NAGF Admin
NAGF News Ticker
     
  • Happy 4th of July Everyone!!!
  • New Members are always welome!!!
  • NAGF
Sign in to follow this  
lucky_x16

Urine or You're Out

26 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

lucky_x16

First off plagarizing a bit here, and I am sure some of you have heard this before, but I whole heartedly believe in it.

 

It has to be cheaper to conduct urine tests (properly supervised), than it does to keep paying alcoholics and drug addicts with your tax tollars.

 

URINE TEST

(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)

 

Like a lot of folks in this state, 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, 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 rump --doing drugs, while I work. . . .

Can you imagine how much money the 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'..

 

Something has to change in this country

-- and soon!!!!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toomanyfumes

I was just discussing this the other day with a co-worker who was tested. It does make sense.:tap::looking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wvboy

Might make a noticeable difference in crime statistics, I'm all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andyb

I disagree with drug tests. Why is it anyone's business what I do on my own time? If I am buzzed at work, then I deserve to be fired. If not, it is none of my employers business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lucky_x16

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:

I disagree with drug tests. Why is it anyone's business what I do on my own time? If I am buzzed at work, then I deserve to be fired. If not, it is none of my employers business.

if you go on public aid and our tax dollars are supporting your habit, I will begrudginly support you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andyb

What makes you think I have a habit to support? I think protecting people's privacy is important. Just because I don't want to piss in a cup has no bearing on whether or not I do drugs. Just like I would not let a cop search my car without a search warrant regardless of whether I had something to hide. It is not what we do in a free society.

 

As for the topic at hand, do you have facts to back up the assertion that it would be cheaper to have drug tests than to pay for benefits for drug addicts? How many folks on public assistance are drug addicts? How much does it actually cost to administer a drug test each month? Would it really pay off. Perhaps so, but without facts it is just an opinion.

 

Many years ago before we were married, my wife was on Welfare because her ex-husband decided that he did not need to help with the bills for the kids. Soon after we got together, she got off welfare and many years later we both contribute to society. I think it would have been an insult if she had had to piss in a cup to qualify for the assistance she got. It was bad enough to ask for help, much less to be assumed she was a drug addict because she needed the help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lucky_x16

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:

I disagree with drug tests. Why is it anyone's business what I do on my own time? If I am buzzed at work, then I deserve to be fired. If not, it is none of my employers business.

How else would they know your on drugs with out random testing? People come up with the stupidest excuses to cover their illicit dealings in their personal life.

 

There are more articles than just this one on the issue.

 

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=15506

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andyb

[user=650]lucky_x16[/user] wrote:

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:
I disagree with drug tests. Why is it anyone's business what I do on my own time? If I am buzzed at work, then I deserve to be fired. If not, it is none of my employers business.

How else would they know your on drugs with out random testing? People come up with the stupidest excuses to cover their illicit dealings in their personal life.

 

There are more articles than just this one on the issue.

 

My job requires me to work and think hard. I have no intention/desire to go to work on drugs. If I was on drugs at work it would be observable/noticeable. If it is not, why is it an issue?

 

And, again, you assume that I have an illicit drug habit to cover up. I supervise 5 people based in 4 offices around the country. As a supervisor, I have no business digging into what they do with their personal time unless it hampers their ability to do their job. At that point, I get concerned.

 

People come up with the stupidest excuses to take away other people's freedoms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lucky_x16

I never assumed anything.

 

You are the one that stated that if you get caught on drugs at work you deserve to get fired.

 

Based on that statement, I formed my argument. Most if not all employers as a condition of employment tell new employees they must take random drug screenigns, as well as one prior to getting hired. If in fact you so adamantly disagree with it, let your employer know. Why waste his time.

 

As for drug and alcohol use/abuse not having an effect on the work place, there are thousands of documented cases that it poses not only a safety concern, but a performance loss as well. If and I do mean "if", you choose to do drugs, and your employer chooses to exercise the condition of employment to have you screened, well, we should condem him/her for singling you out?

 

I have no problem taking a drug test, or even a sobriety test at my place of employment, or if law enforcement suspects me of illicit or illegal drug use/abuse, or alcohol abuse. I do not see that as an invasion of privacy, but more as workplace/public safety concerns.

 

As for randomly testing public aid recipients for drug use/abuse. I still remain all for it. If they have a problem with it, then let them get a job and earn an income like most of us do in order to survive. Why should we as a state/country support them if they cannot pass the same critera we must to maintain employment?

 

I am so unsympathetic about it, I would not even vote to send them to rehab. If they are on public aid and have an addiction to drugs or alcohol, let them exercise step 1 and find god so he can help them. After all that is what churches are for is to save people from themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DigbyODell

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:

I disagree with drug tests. Why is it anyone's business what I do on my own time? If I am buzzed at work, then I deserve to be fired. If not, it is none of my employers business.

Accually it is nobodies bussiness what you do on your own time. However, when it effects work time, that is not your time, it is your employeers, he/she pays you, you work.. If your free time habits effect your work time, it effects all employees. As well as the products to make, which effects your employers bottom dollar.

 

I have to take random drug tests, I am ok with it. But then again, if I am drunk/high, I could kill many people..

 

If a cop pulls me over and HAS REASON to search my vehicle, he/she has every right, to protect the others around me. Notice I said has reason, I will not let them search my home or vehicle WITHOUT PROPER CAUSE.

 

As for the welfare urine test, I am supporting them, I have every right to know my money is not being used to support their habits... Bottom line, you want my money, prove you deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andyb

[user=8]DigbyODell[/user] wrote:

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:
I disagree with drug tests. Why is it anyone's business what I do on my own time? If I am buzzed at work, then I deserve to be fired. If not, it is none of my employers business.

Accually it is nobodies bussiness what you do on your own time. However, when it effects work time, that is not your time, it is your employeers, he/she pays you, you work.. If your free time habits effect your work time, it effects all employees. As well as the products to make, which effects your employers bottom dollar.

 

That is what I am trying to say. If it affects my work time, then I have invited my employer into my business. But, if it takes a drug test to show them, then it probably is not affecting my work. Of course, I have a white collar job. If I had a job such as a driver, pilot, etc that could cause other people harm, then that is a different story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andyb

[user=650]lucky_x16[/user] wrote:

I never assumed anything.

 

You are the one that stated that if you get caught on drugs at work you deserve to get fired.

 

Based on that statement, I formed my argument.

It is called a hypothetical situation in order to make a point. I never stated that I did or did not do illegal drugs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wvboy

There is a difference in people using the gov. support to get back on their feet and people that live on gov. support with no intent of being a productive member of society.

 

They should have no rights if they are living on gov. support for years and years, they haven't earned anything. Treat them just like we treat our children, if they don't get good grades and do the chores they don't get an allowance. If they aren't looking for work or doing some service, they don't get a check.

 

What is wrong with testing for illegal substances, if they have anything in their system it was bought with taxpayer money and if they have enough money to buy drugs they don't need to be supported by taxpayers any longer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andyb

[user=650]lucky_x16[/user] wrote:

I am so unsympathetic about it, I would not even vote to send them to rehab.

How very Christian of you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
devansgirl

I think they should do drug tests for welfare!!! I am sick of seeing certain people go to the store and get cart loads full of groceries with food stamps who I KNOW are drug users. They spend all their money on drugs and use all MY money on their food!! :whip::whip::whip: Not fair to any taxpayer!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andyb

[user=97]Wvboy[/user] wrote:

There is a difference in people using the gov. support to get back on their feet and people that live on gov. support with no intent of being a productive member of society.

 

They should have no rights if they are living on gov. support for years and years, they haven't earned anything. Treat them just like we treat our children, if they don't get good grades and do the chores they don't get an allowance. If they aren't looking for work or doing some service, they don't get a check.

 

What is wrong with testing for illegal substances, if they have anything in their system it was bought with taxpayer money and if they have enough money to buy drugs they don't need to be supported by taxpayers any longer.

Generally, I am against drug testing and other things that erode our rights. I think there is more of a case to be made for this instance, but it is kind of the like the NRA arguing against Assault Rifle bans. Most law abiding gun owners have no use/desire for an assault rifle, but the concern is what is the next step. If we ban assault rifles, what next? If we make drug testing mandatory for one group, where does it stop?

 

And, on a more practical side, imagine the bureaucracy. How long does it take to get the result back? How do we know the lab did not screw up? There would have to be an appeal process. And, if we did do it, all that would be left in terms of income would be crime. That would suck at least as bad, I think. This is a tough issue and I do not think there is an easy answer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lucky_x16

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:

[user=650]lucky_x16[/user] wrote:

I am so unsympathetic about it, I would not even vote to send them to rehab.

How very Christian of you.

Amazingly you missed having the churchs handle the rehab.

 

I just see no need for us to continue helping those that will not help themselves.

 

Much like dodging arguments, with falicious starting points.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lucky_x16

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:

Of course, I have a white collar job. If I had a job such as a driver, pilot, etc that could cause other people harm, then that is a different story.

So having a "white collar" job makes you special? You should be held to a different standard than a blue collar worker?

 

Are drivers, pilots lesser people?

 

What about doctors, dentists, policemen, politicians, and educators?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dwsonar

Testing would also create more jobs. There would be a need for collectors, testers, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DigbyODell

[user=962]dwsonar[/user] wrote:

Testing would also create more jobs. There would be a need for collectors, testers, etc.

Hey more gov employees for the czar king :doh: :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cactus_Jack

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:

...How do we know the lab did not screw up? There would have to be an appeal process. ...

When the sample is collected it's split into two containers just for that reason so if you think there is a mistake a second test can be done. That is if the person being tested was smart enough to keep the paperwork they where given at the time of the testing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wvboy

I know it would not be a perfect system but it would be better than just giving away the money with very little control.

 

I agree with Donna, I've seen food stamps used by very well dressed people to buy carts full of groceries and then load the bags into a late model cadillac.

 

We have to start somewhere at fixing the problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andyb

[user=650]lucky_x16[/user] wrote:

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:
Of course, I have a white collar job. If I had a job such as a driver, pilot, etc that could cause other people harm, then that is a different story.

So having a "white collar" job makes you special? You should be held to a different standard than a blue collar worker?

 

Are drivers, pilots lesser people?

 

What about doctors, dentists, policemen, politicians, and educators?

Boy, did that come out wrong. It has nothing to do with class, blue collar vs. white collar, or who is lesser. I grew up blue collar. My dad and grandfather were machinists. Two of my three brothers are machinists and the other is a cop. I have spent plenty of time doing hard physical labor and I do not consider myself above anyone.

 

What I was trying to say is that I have an office job. If I come in under the influence of drugs/alcohol(which I do not do, just for the record) then I am not threatening other peoples' safety. However, jobs that affect the public's safety are different. I gave pilots and drivers as an example because if they come to work under the influence, then they are endangering people.

 

As far as doctors and dentists, well most of them are independent business owners. I am not sure who would be in charge of enforcing this kind of standard on independent business owners. I think folks should vote with their wallets on this one. If you suspect your doctor or dentist is under the influence, you should leave and find a new one.

 

Politicians are a special case. I think some of them already are. If they are not, perhaps they should be. They might make more reasonable decisions. (note-attempt at humor to lighten the atmosphere)

 

And, finally I will try to lay out my basic thinking on the topic- My default position is that I think the government and employers ought to stay out of peoples' personal life unless there is a compelling public safety issue at hand.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andyb

[user=650]lucky_x16[/user] wrote:

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:
[user=650]lucky_x16[/user] wrote:

I am so unsympathetic about it, I would not even vote to send them to rehab.

How very Christian of you.

Amazingly you missed having the churchs handle the rehab.

 

I just see no need for us to continue helping those that will not help themselves.

 

Much like dodging arguments, with falicious starting points.

I disagree with your approach, but I stated it rather tactlessly. I apologize.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lucky_x16

[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:

[user=650]lucky_x16[/user] wrote:
[user=878]Andyb[/user] wrote:
[user=650]lucky_x16[/user] wrote:

I am so unsympathetic about it, I would not even vote to send them to rehab.

How very Christian of you.

Amazingly you missed having the churchs handle the rehab.

 

I just see no need for us to continue helping those that will not help themselves.

 

Much like dodging arguments, with falicious starting points.

I disagree with your approach, but I stated it rather tactlessly. I apologize.

Trust me, I was not offended. Until the white collar statement. Personally, I think that unless you or anyone is being dressed by a valet that works for free, we are all equal.

 

As for being a good christian? Well that is another argument for another thread all together.

 

Every once in a while I like a good argument. Sometimes, I even do as you have and play devil's advocate.

 

Bottom line is, most that have drug and alcohol problems do not live productive motivated lifestyles. If we the tax payers are supporting them, then as their benefactors should we not demand that they prove that they are trying?

 

Note, I am not targeting those with disabilities either physical or mental, but those that are healthy and should be in the workforce or attempting.

 

I am also not targeting those on unemployment. While I have not utilized it in many years, and then only for a few weeks after I got out of the military. Those people for the most part have earned those benifits. Let them have them for the original grace period. However once they file for an extension, put them on the monthly testing as well.

 

I must agree with the Cupcake man on this. Help those that are willing to help themselves. It is in our nature that if given something we come to expect it after a while. That said, it is time to reach an agreement with those that for what ever reason do not work, and say these are our expectations.

 

As for testing, they have instant cups that check for the basics, as a random 10 panel test. They come with a temperature sensitive label on the side to help avoid tampering. These range between $25 to $35 each. No clinics or labs to mess up. Just do the deposit, cap it, and wait 3 minutes. Other than that, you have a designated person watching to ensure your not ziplocking your samble in.

 

The same thing most if not all employed people should do.

 

As for doctors and dentists, if the AMA, and the Czar's people are not testing themselves, they should.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use,