jester3681 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 *stretches fingers*I wholeheartedly agree with drug testing for welfare. I can't think of a job since Bob Evans in High School where I didn't need to maintain a drug-free lifestyle in exchange for compensation. If I chose to refuse, I ws either not hired, or faced discipline up to termination. If you are in a situation where you accept some form of welfare, you should be willing to accept the process.But... I think our welfare system as a whole is terribly flawed. Created in a time when the average family was a homemaker, working husband, 2.6 kids, dog and one car, I think it's premise today needs some attention. Society as a whole has gotten away from the family unit (guys, not to hijack the thread, but this is the source of 75% of society's problems), and has embraced a culture of excess (there's the other 25%). I think the biggest change I made to become an "adult" was to realize that the easiest way to be happy is to appreciate what you have and enjoy it. Having kids does that to you.Now, back to the welfare system - at the time it was created, it was side by side with the Works Progress Administration. The government built stuff. Lots of stuff. Big stuff. Stuff we needed. Probably more stuff we didn't need. But while homemaker was at home with government rations, her husband (not being sexist, this is American History here, folks) was at work building the Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority power grid and the Toledo Zoo to name a few. Think of what the infrastructure would be like today if every person on welfare had to patch a pothole or help put up a new building?It just saddens me to see our culture get so far from where we started. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate where we've come, but man. We need to take a step back. We all can't drive Ferraris and be Rap Moguls.How many of us shared a room with a sibling (or two) growing up? Parents drove the same cars until the wheels fell off? Played outside until the sun went down? Knew where every trail in 10 parks went (BEN!)? Can tell me when they got cable (all 10 channels)? I think we turned out ok, right?*leaving the soap box* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 *stretches fingers*I wholeheartedly agree with drug testing for welfare. I can't think of a job since Bob Evans in High School where I didn't need to maintain a drug-free lifestyle in exchange for compensation. If I chose to refuse, I ws either not hired, or faced discipline up to termination. If you are in a situation where you accept some form of welfare, you should be willing to accept the process.But... I think our welfare system as a whole is terribly flawed. Created in a time when the average family was a homemaker, working husband, 2.6 kids, dog and one car, I think it's premise today needs some attention. Society as a whole has gotten away from the family unit (guys, not to hijack the thread, but this is the source of 75% of society's problems), and has embraced a culture of excess (there's the other 25%). I think the biggest change I made to become an "adult" was to realize that the easiest way to be happy is to appreciate what you have and enjoy it. Having kids does that to you.Now, back to the welfare system - at the time it was created, it was side by side with the Works Progress Administration. The government built stuff. Lots of stuff. Big stuff. Stuff we needed. Probably more stuff we didn't need. But while homemaker was at home with government rations, her husband (not being sexist, this is American History here, folks) was at work building the Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority power grid and the Toledo Zoo to name a few. Think of what the infrastructure would be like today if every person on welfare had to patch a pothole or help put up a new building?It just saddens me to see our culture get so far from where we started. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate where we've come, but man. We need to take a step back. We all can't drive Ferraris and be Rap Moguls.How many of us shared a room with a sibling (or two) growing up? Parents drove the same cars until the wheels fell off? Played outside until the sun went down? Knew where every trail in 10 parks went (BEN!)? Can tell me when they got cable (all 10 channels)? I think we turned out ok, right?*leaving the soap box*Great post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Maybe add Ohio to the short list...Bill Would Require Drug Tests For Ohio Public Aid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Heck I've been drug tested at almost every job I've had since 19 years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost1888 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) The first unquoted or the first part of the second paragraph?Sorry quoted second paragraph about who's worthy of bennies. Edited September 1, 2011 by Lost1888 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 How many of us shared a room with a sibling (or two) growing up? Parents drove the same cars until the wheels fell off? Played outside until the sun went down? Knew where every trail in 10 parks went (BEN!)? Can tell me when they got cable (all 10 channels)? I think we turned out ok, right? I don't think drug testing is "unfair," but the fact that it's (arguably) unconstitutional is going to make the topic highly debatable, even for those who like the idea.But you bring up a good point about our change in expectations. I can't tell you exactly why, but my generation has grown to expect a lot of luxuries, and we think they're necessities.Not sharing a bedroom, cable TV, 2+ cars, central air, cell phones, video gaming systems, etc...None of those are really essentials, but people will go on welfare before giving them up!There were more than 10 cable channels when we finally got cable, but it was 1998, and I was in high school by then. I don't recall exactly when my parents bought second car, but I remember our 1985 Pontiac 6000 cranking, but not starting very often. My dad's '88 escort GT (5-speed) was the first time my parents owned a second car. I was at least 5, and my brother was probably 3 by the time that purchase was made.My parents didn't buy us a gaming system until a year or two after N64 came out. My brothers pooled money they earned doing yard work and purchased an original nintendo at a garage sale. The supernintendo was bought from one of my friends when they got N64.I didn't have a cell phone until my junior year of college, and those "life-link" radio commercials drive me crazy. "a free cell phone?" My ass! Someone's paying for it!I think we're really spoiled as a culture. Our parents' drive to give us a better life than they had has turned us into dim-witted pussies who live in front of a TV or a computer. I like to think of myself as part of the population who 'un-plugs' and gets outside pretty often, but the fact is I'm still a part of the problem.Now to talk the wife into cancelling our dish service... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Excellent post I totally agree. Too many people put luxuries before needs! My sister and her bf for instance complained because they couldn't afford health insurance, yet they could afford two Iphones, cable, high speed internet, xbox 360, Wii, and ps3, preordered every game they wanted, oh and ate out every meal. Hmmm I wonder why you can't afford health insurance or to get your license. People have few needs food, water, shelter, weather appropriate clothing. If people gave priority to their needs and didn't blow their paychecks on luxuries they wouldn't all be in this situation. And too many people can live comfortably on government assistance. One thing I have thought would help is to put the recipients to work as bus monitors, playground monitors, janitors, landscapers, painters, etc anything really to make them show up 30+ hrs a week even if it is to sit in an auditorium in a chair for 30+ hrs with no tv, cell phone, magazine, nothing see if they want to mooch off system if they have to show up like us working class folks. I don't think thus would fix the system either so just eliminate all entitlements! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester3681 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 I don't think drug testing is "unfair," but the fact that it's (arguably) unconstitutional is going to make the topic highly debatable, even for those who like the idea.Not attacking this post (Redkow, sounds like you and I fundamentally agree anyways), but I'd love for someone to cite the specific Article or Ammendment of the US Consititution that a drug test in exchange for public assistance violates. Maybe I missed that "Right to Public Assistance" ammendment during government class. Maybe Right to Bear Arms? Like if you had bare arms they'd see the needle marks? Right to Assembly? Like the right to assemble your water bong and puff away your (our?) money? Right To Due Process and no Double Jeopardy? Like your brain is so processed, due, that you see two TVs at 7 pm when Jeopardy is on? Nah, not trying to be a dick, but am genuinely interested in hearing a legal arguement against it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadyone Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) I like CRB's thoughts. It should be that if you are getting assistance then you now work for the government. Whatever it may be raking leaves, mowing lawns, painting fences, whatever simple task it may be. even if its sitting in a large room with nothing to do. I think i like that one the best. you miss a day you get less or lets say you need your lawn mowed while away on vacation. call up the government and they send someone out as a free service for you putting money into the system. this way it can be called a pay check and then they can drug test you. legally without anyone saying its unconstitutional. government employees get tested all the time. On another note... If welfare recipients using drugs truly isn't a problem then not that many people will be affected by it thus no one should care. as far as it being unconstitutional, I say bull shit. you arent forced onto welfare. its your choice not to get a job. and I understand that some people are actually dependent on it because of disabilities thats different. but if you are an able bodied person, on welfare its not to much to ask that you not use the money for drugs."Another study found that 70% of illegal-drug users between the age of 18 and 49 are employed full time" Which to me says that 30% of drug users are on welfare or unemployment. I don't care what you chose to do in your own time whether it be drugs or bangin fat chicks but I as a job holder and someone who refuses to get government help as long as I am able bodied, shouldn't have to support you if you do decide to use drugs.. Edited September 1, 2011 by shadyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyco1 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Not attacking this post (Redkow, sounds like you and I fundamentally agree anyways), but I'd love for someone to cite the specific Article or Ammendment of the US Consititution that a drug test in exchange for public assistance violates. Maybe I missed that "Right to Public Assistance" ammendment during government class. Maybe Right to Bear Arms? Like if you had bare arms they'd see the needle marks? Right to Assembly? Like the right to assemble your water bong and puff away your (our?) money? Right To Due Process and no Double Jeopardy? Like your brain is so processed, due, that you see two TVs at 7 pm when Jeopardy is on? Nah, not trying to be a dick, but am genuinely interested in hearing a legal arguement against it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_v._Millerhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-126.ZO.htmlI don't think that anything that doesn't come close to having a bunch of peoples lives in their hands, like a pilot or bus driver, will sway the SCOTUS to make a 4th exemption. Edited September 1, 2011 by psyco1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcarlson Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Need to feed and clothe your family, and expect the government to pay for it? There are five branches of the military more than willing to help you out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester3681 Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Hmm... Chandler vs. Miller. Interesting. There must be some kind of conflicting precident, right? I mean, by this rulng, unless you are deeped to be in a field that is a threat to public safety, drug tests violate your 4th Ammendment rights, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyco1 Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Hmm... Chandler vs. Miller. Interesting. There must be some kind of conflicting precedent, right? I mean, by this ruling, unless you are deemed to be in a field that is a threat to public safety, drug tests violate your 4th Amendment rights, correct?I think it means if you're getting public funds, then yea. Private business has a lot more latitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wht_scorpion Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Free hand out they need to get drug tested or get a job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 did anyone take note of who owns the company that got the fat state contract to drug test in florida?the governors wife... conflict of interest? the governor says no, since its his wife and not him... so i guess this program IS working as intended... pockets are getting lined. $$$$$ if you think think is about saving money, you are sorely mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.