Drug testing to receive welfare

Hatch proposes drug testing for welfare, unemployment recipients

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11192389

gonna see hatch more conservative to gear up for 2012, is it gonna work?

I think it's a good idea. If your going to be a pothead, and you cannot get a job because you fail drug tests then you shouldn't rely on the government to take care of you.

I am against drug testing as it exists today. I feel it is an invasion of privacy and the tests currently used do not test for intoxication they only test for residual markers. I would never go to work intoxicated and certainly wouldn't want to work with somebody that was intoxicated. However pre-employment drug screens as well as random screens don't do anything to prevent on the job intoxication. That said seeing as the folks that are working and having their money stolen by the govt to give to those who can't or won't work,are subjected to drug and alcohol testing,then the recipients of govt theft should be subjected to the testing as well. It just seems fair to me.

Yonni wrote:

Hatch proposes drug testing for welfare, unemployment recipients

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11192389

gonna see hatch more conservative to gear up for 2012, is it gonna work?

I agree and disagree with your assertion about Hatch. I agree he is going to LOOK more conservative, I disagree that he WILL be more conservative. This is a perfect example; if he were truly being conservative on the issue he would propose tightening the restrictions on who qualifies for welfare and for how long. Drug testing sounds good, and will get the 'social conservatives' excited, but is this a solution to anything? How much would the testing cost the taxpayers? Are they going to test for alcohol, salt, sugar, tobacco as well? Except for alcohol, these items can be purchased with food stamps, and we all know how 'harmful' and wasteful such chemicals are.

This is politics, and a distraction, but it is NOT a legitimate 'conservative' proposal!

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

I am against drug testing as it exists today. I feel it is an invasion of privacy and the tests currently used do not test for intoxication they only test for residual markers. I would never go to work intoxicated and certainly wouldn't want to work with somebody that was intoxicated. However pre-employment drug screens as well as random screens don't do anything to prevent on the job intoxication. That said seeing as the folks that are working and having their money stolen by the govt to give to those who can't or won't work,are subjected to drug and alcohol testing,then the recipients of govt theft should be subjected to the testing as well. It just seems fair to me.

I oppose GOVERNMENT drug testing, but I support a PRIVATE entity having the ability as a condition of employment to have drug testing. The government doing it takes a way ones rights of privacy, a private company doing it as a condition of employment still allows the individual to choose between his privacy and looking for a new way to earn a wage.

proutdoors wrote:

Yonni wrote:

Hatch proposes drug testing for welfare, unemployment recipients

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11192389

gonna see hatch more conservative to gear up for 2012, is it gonna work?

I agree and disagree with your assertion about Hatch. I agree he is going to LOOK more conservative, I disagree that he WILL be more conservative. This is a perfect example; if he were truly being conservative on the issue he would propose tightening the restrictions on who qualifies for welfare and for how long. Drug testing sounds good, and will get the 'social conservatives' excited, but is this a solution to anything? How much would the testing cost the taxpayers? Are they going to test for alcohol, salt, sugar, tobacco as well? Except for alcohol AND TOBACCO these items can be purchased with food stamps, and we all know how 'harmful' and wasteful such chemicals are.

This is politics, and a distraction, but it is NOT a legitimate 'conservative' proposal!

I corrected your statement for you Pro.

Well done, since I have never tried to purchase tobacco products with/without food stamps I missed that one.

proutdoors wrote:

I oppose GOVERNMENT drug testing, but I support a PRIVATE entity having the ability as a condition of employment to have drug testing. The government doing it takes a way ones rights of privacy, a private company doing it as a condition of employment still allows the individual to choose between his privacy and looking for a new way to earn a wage.

Exactly. And I'll add one more thought. Why welfare at all? It's time to eliminate ALL federal entitlement programs.

fatbass wrote:

It's time to eliminate ALL federal entitlement programs.

A-FREAKING-MEN!

esp for the veterans, theyre our biggest waste of money, the largest entitlement program of all

tm

trout-mutha wrote:

esp for the veterans, theyre our biggest waste of money, the largest entitlement program of all

tm

You're wrong again. The veterans have made a lot of sacrafices for this country so that you can run your mouth on the internet.

well lets face it, in recent times, since WWII, this amounts to a gift, a gift of employment, same as getting a check on welfare, its an entitlement for people who cant get a f'ing job, and its the communist pay scale too thats the real bs

our military is filled with non-citizens and poor people, that those with means send to war to protect their monetary interests, period

tm

trout-mutha wrote:

well lets face it, in recent times, since WWII, this amounts to a gift, a gift of employment, same as getting a check on welfare, its an entitlement for people who cant get a f'ing job, and its the communist pay scale too thats the real bs

our military is filled with non-citizens and poor people, that those with means send to war to protect their monetary interests, period

tm

How is this an entitlement, they are working for their money. Welfare is a handout, big difference in my opinion. I personally am not against welfare, I think there is times when it is great, but there needs to be rules and stipulations that force people off of it in a certain time frame. I hate generation welfare families.

theyre murdering, not working


tm

trout-mutha wrote:

theyre murdering, not working


tm

And your trolling, man you need to learn some respect for the people that allow you to be a douche on the internet.

no im responding to the idiocy of the members of this board

and i cant remember the war for the internet, did reagan win that one too?????

tm

trout-mutha wrote:

no im responding to the idiocy of the members of this board

and i cant remember the war for the internet, did reagan win that one too?????

tm

Then have an educated debate. So far all you have done is throw out one liners and be a troll. I have saw many members try to engage you in a debate and you just have a smart ass comment, so who is the idiot?

it was put up to this thread to cut out all federal entitilements, and i agreed, making the point that us military entitlements are far greater than any food stamps, and a free visit to the emergency room . . and that all should be cut out

tm

jahan wrote:

trout-mutha wrote:

no im responding to the idiocy of the members of this board

and i cant remember the war for the internet, did reagan win that one too?????

tm

Then have an educated debate. So far all you have done is throw out one liners and be a troll. I have saw many members try to engage you in a debate and you just have a smart ass comment, so who is the idiot?

Come on Hajan you really haven't figured it out. He is Pro's nemesis they color his handle in green over at the UWN. No more clues.

trout-mutha wrote:

it was put up to this thread to cut out all federal entitilements, and i agreed, making the point that us military entitlements are far greater than any food stamps, and a free visit to the emergency room . . and that all should be cut out

tm

And my argument was it is not an entitlement when they are working for it, they earned it, big difference, then you proceeded to disrespect our Military folks by calling them all murders, so what part of that comment was educated?

killing + money = murder

tm

theres your education

tm

trout-mutha wrote:

theres your education

tm

You mean your opinion? I don't think Webster would agree with you. These boys are doing a job that sometimes mean killing the enemy and they get paid to protect our freedoms. Are there bad soldiers, of course, but why should we stereotype them all as murderers?

constitution man constitution, thats all i hear from the tea-baggers . . .well lets see

the power to declare war is congress' alone

korea, vietnam, iraq 1 & 2, afghanistan, these have never been declared a war . . .its going somewhere to kill for an ideology and money

no war = murdering for profit, murdering to feel good, what an obsenity . .

tm