You guys got this all wrong.
[QUOTE=bassin_bug;324177]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 @ss, 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?! Something has to change in this counry--and soon.
You guys got this all wrong.
If you guys are paying more in taxes than you are for gas,food,insurance, and healthcare then I guess I'm the only poor guy on here. The taxes I pay would no where come even close to the money I spend on gas in a year. The problem here is with the rich, they want to get richer.
WE ALL need to make these politicians step up to the plate and to try and do something about this mess (gas,rising food prices,healthcare costs). If gas were $2.00 a gallon we wouldn't be in this mess and I can remember when I thought $2.00/gal was insane. I don't know the answer but I haven't heard any of the 3 stooges running for president have a suggestion either. I guess they are accepting handouts from the big oil guys. Alternative fuels sources would help some but we need it now not 10 years from now.
I'm not saying that there is not a problem with government waste and there is misuse of welfare. But did you know that the "urine test" you speak of has interfering substances that cause "false positives" in some instances (various legitimate prescription drug interactions or even errors can happen with collection/testing). For some of these folks there is real need and if there is a positive test, there would need to be a retest for verification. As far as the unemployed being tested...are you kidding me. I was unemployed for 2 years after 20 years of working for the same factory.....our company got ran under by foreign competition (NAFTA, another big problem). I went to school and bettered myself and now work in a hosptial lab. Oh, who's gonna pay for all these drug screens...the taxpayers...and believe me they are not cheap. Random drug screens, where anyone could be tested at anytime might work as a deterent for some drug use and would not be as costly to the taxpayers.
Tim
bassmaster