The job - urine test

[SFC Cobb]

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.

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 ASS, 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'.

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. . Some thing has to change in this country -- and soon!!!!!!!

 

[Big Jack]

Amen

 

[03demax]

Good one!!!!

 

[custom8726]

Makes sense...

 

[SmokeShow]

could not agree more... and sometimes the rebuttal to that idea is cost of administering the tests. Complete BS, take it out of every forth check or once a month when they get. That's the LEAST the can do to EARN their check and they should pay for it. Hell, they are getting FREE MONEY, it ain't gonna kill 'em to pay $100 for the piss test once a month.

Plus it'd be one hella job security for the local Dr. and test lab facilities. They should REALLY be lobbying for such a thing.



C-ya

 

[WolfLMM]

I like the idea! Problem is that there isn't many people left in the world that think like us!

 

[juddski88]

I think it's a plausible option. I don't see why it would cause so much distress in Congress but for all I know there could be a law against profiling federal benefits recipients that would be a tough one to fight in the Supreme Court.

 

[Dan@PPE]

SFC for president!

 

[SmokeShow]

I can see how a scummer would try and say it's profiling but it really shouldn't be since folks have to do it for their job to earn money.

 

[NelsonDiesel]

i like it and have said the same thing !!!

Problem is, who is gonna pay for it. who is gonna monitor it... extra money will be needed to pay for those that maintain it. Mind you i know for a fact the state and/or country will make billions off the deal in the long run.... There would be so many more beggers on the freeway on/off ramps.... or maybe it would teach people to get off their asses and something..

i would be willing to pay a small bit more taxes if i knew this would be implemented !

 

[TX23]

A simple "single drop" test that does not need to be sent to a Medical Review Officer (MRO) is $30 or less. These tests are over 99% accurate, and we have all new employees submit to one, and can test them at any time via random screens. What would be the harm in requiring random screens and not handing out checks to those that come up positive until they're clean? We don't give paychecks to "dirty" candidates or employees, and these are people who actually want to WORK for a living.

I'm not against public assistance. I know some really good people who have fallen on hard times, and they have to support their families, but I don't see the problem in requiring that they be clean in order to receive the benefit. Too much apathy and not enough action...

 

[TX23]

SFC for president!

X2!!!!

 

[SmokeShow]

A simple "single drop" test that does not need to be sent to a Medical Review Officer (MRO) is $30 or less. These tests are over 99% accurate, and we have all new employees submit to one, and can test them at any time via random screens. What would be the harm in requiring random screens and not handing out checks to those that come up positive until they're clean? We don't give paychecks to "dirty" candidates or employees, and these are people who actually want to WORK for a living.

I'm not against public assistance. I know some really good people who have fallen on hard times, and they have to support their families, but I don't see the problem in requiring that they be clean in order to receive the benefit. Too much apathy and not enough action...

Exactly and you mentioned a good thing about the frequency of the test...

Maybe have an initial test (to be paid by the receiver of the money) when the person applies for the assistance. Then to save a little money, instead of a monthly check of everyone, hold random checks based on the total number of people receiving the assistance. For instance, maybe check 1% or 5% or 10% or whatever % deemed appropriate/economical of all the recipients every month.

I still say the actual fee for the test needs to be garnished from the recipients check not an added tax/cost to the working tax payers.



C-ya

 

[clayt171]

Exactly and you mentioned a good thing about the frequency of the test...

Maybe have an initial test (to be paid by the receiver of the money) when the person applies for the assistance. Then to save a little money, instead of a monthly check of everyone, hold random checks based on the total number of people receiving the assistance. For instance, maybe check 1% or 5% or 10% or whatever % deemed appropriate/economical of all the recipients every month.

I still say the actual fee for the test needs to be garnished from the recipients check not an added tax/cost to the working tax payers.



C-ya

Only thing then that would have to be strongly monitored would be that everyone gets tested the same number of times in a given time period. You can't make one person receiving assistance pay more in a year or so due to him getting tested more often just because his random number came up more times than someone else. Now to add to that, if someone was to be 'caught' then they would have to get tested at a more frequent rate.

I think I lost count of all the "tests" I got in the Army. The worst part of that is when you got picked to watch/supervise

 

[SmokeShow]

Only thing then that would have to be strongly monitored would be that everyone gets tested the same number of times in a given time period. You can't make one person receiving assistance pay more in a year or so due to him getting tested more often just because his random number came up more times than someone else. That's fair enough. Now to add to that, if someone was to be 'caught' then they would have to get tested at a more frequent rate. WRONG! IMO, there needs to be an absolute zero tolerance. You fail, you forfeit receiving any further assitance immediately until you can show that pass the test. At which point you could then start receiving assistance again. The second time around, however, you're automatically checked every time period (whether it's weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.). If you fail a second time, your done regardless of how many tests you can pass later on. Chances are, if they cleaned up and could pass them from then on, they likely wouldn't need the assistance anymore.


I think I lost count of all the "tests" I got in the Army. The worst part of that is when you got picked to watch/supervise

My $.02 in red above. :angel:

 

[McRat]

Pretty much anyone wanting money from the Gov't (us) should prove to us they aren't spending OUR money for drugs. Congress, Judges, Teachers, Gov't employees, etc.

If they want a paycheck from their neighbors (us), they should provide a certified test at least once a year. Many private employers already do.

Who pays for it? Hopefully those fired or denied benefits would save us enough money to fund it, and then some. And if they fail, they pay directly.

Heck, they make us check our cars, the least they can do is pee in a bottle for us.

 

[Dan@PPE]

Smokeshow for Vice President!

 

[03demax]

If they were made to come up with the CASH to pay for the retest and the one they failed. Make the wait at least a month or 6 weeks between the retest. If they had to dig up the money and pay for it themselves they would start to think, or find the mission house and live there. They should have to test there too. Treat that the same way. Maybe let them live there for a little and to stay you have to test. Great Ideas guys!!

 

[TX23]

The worst part of that is when you got picked to watch/supervise[/QUOTE]

Totally agree...Not a fun day, no matter the circumstances...:scare:

 

[Turbo Buick 6]

Whos gonna pay? It can come out of their leach checks. I don't belive in welfare at all, but if there are going to be probgrams out there that alow people to suck off me, they should have to take a piss test just like me