Urine Tests

[Justice Hog]

Just received this via email from someone. I thought....hmmmmm....food for thought.

"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 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 while using drugs to pass the day away. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?????

Something has to change in this country and soon!!!!! "

[Fios]

Aside from the rather large gap between finite welfare checks and gainful employment, many answers can be found here:

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/ ... 30415.html

[SkinsFreak]

Folks... post's like these are obviously meant to ridicule, tease and make fun of TexasCowboy. I would remind you that these types of personal attacks and public embarrassments are completely forbidden outside of the Smack forum. Please refrain from directly embarrassing TexasCowboy any further when not posting in Smack. Thank you.

[UK Skins Fan]

I had my urine tested a while ago. Turned out it's got a higher IQ than my brain.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Aside from the rather large gap between finite welfare checks and gainful employment, many answers can be found here:

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/ ... 30415.html

So you believe this tripe? The Fourth Amendment, which protects from illegal search and seizure applies to people who come to the people (government) for a job or a welfare check are "protected" from drug testing? There is nothing "Mandatory" about that testing, it is only for people asking the government for something. No one is compelled to ask for a job or a handout. That is a choice. It is only mandatory for those making a choice, which makes it not mandatory.

Same as random testing for alcohol on the roads, you chose to drive on public roads regulated by government and the government has the right to regulate those roads. That is why I support seat belt laws on public roads as a libertarian as well. I would be totally against forced drug testing of anyone for drugs or alcohol in their home or on private property or for seatbelts when driving on private property. But you can't have it both ways you ask for a job, ask for a handout, or drive on roads regulated by government you are subject to it's rules for getting it.

Talk about the courts making law, the Founding Fathers would vomit, they considered this the pervue of the legislature, not a legislating judiciary who pulls laws out of their............ashtray. Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

[welch]

I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass while using drugs to pass the day away.

Justice, that's a question that pulls me in a couple of directions:

(a) No one gets rich collecting welfare or public disability -- the payouts are so small and living costs so much that people are closer to starving or being tossed in the street. It's not an easy life.

(b) Some people do, clearly, take their public assistance and blow the money on drugs. Voom, all at once. So...

(c) We could declare that anyone receiving public assistance is a sort pf "ward of the state", the same as a psychotic ("danger to self or others"). Then the state could assign someone to monitor them...regularly adminstering urine tests, or issuing them a daily living allowance that gives them no extra money to buy drugs. But...

(d) That is very intrusive, and seems justified only if the person is otherwise incapable of caring for themselves...mentally disturbed. It is done today in housing for the mentally ill, which, however,

(e) Takes a lot of effort by social workers to manage their patients. A lot of social workers being paid from the same small fund that pays assistance, and is hard to justfy unless the person being managed has signed themselves in for housing and medical/mental treatment. They would need to be a patient, rather than a free individual. Monitoring can be made a part of the "contract" that someone signs to get into supportive housing. So...

(f) Doing state-wide what social agencies do in one building -- closely monitoring anyone who receives public assistance -- would be a mess beyond anything we've seen or imagined. An awful lot of urine tests managed by an awful lot of case-workers. Meanwhile...

(g) There are bone-chilling cases that turn up too regularly of children being beaten, starved, raped, murdered by "family" members. It irritates me to pay taxes that someone uses to buy drugs. Still, should we take case-workers out of the local bureau of child welfare and devote them to making clients -- no, welfare "patients" -- take drug tests?

Anyway, I don't have a good answer. Urine testing is thought-starting hyperbole, but not realistic.

[Countertrey]

Still, should we take case-workers out of the local bureau of child welfare and devote them to making clients -- no, welfare "patients" -- take drug tests?

Nope.

No test... no check. No social worker required.