drug testing for food stamps?

FiveB247x

No it is not discrimination for your employment because your job may relate to it in some fact. You seem to be ignoring the fact that receiving food stamps or being in need of assistance has zero to do with drug use. The two are not connected in any matter except for the fact that you seem to be using it as a guise to clean up the program or help people in some fashion. That's not the same thing at all though as you claim it. As I said before, if the aim is clean up drug problems in our nation, then do so as theirs far more drug addicts not on assistance program than on them (alcoholics, pill poppers, etc). If the aim is to clean up public assistance programs than target way to get people off them, not create some testing scheme which is a pretty backhanded way to address both issues which really have nothing to do with the other. You combine them mostly because you assume and generalize on both issues as if they are related when in fact they are not. And if you're serious about drugs and such in society, you'd reach far greater number of people through the department of motor vehicles than any assistance program. Far more people die and effect the lives of others in society through drinking and driving than any drug problem you claim, and especially just those on assistance which further narrows down the pool of "offenders".

HeidiJam wrote:

SO its discrimination when my employer randomly selects me to get a drug test??? Because its illegal right... :roll: And there is plenty of proof that women on welfare abuse illegal drugs more. ALmost every link I looked at said this. And thats fine if the working class people you know are doing drugs, they are using their money to do that, But welfare receipients are using tax money provided to them for basic need living. I am trying to figure out how people on assistance are not there on their own choice... We live in a country that has free education, which provides free books and all school supplies, free clothes, and Colleges now lower the enterance grade/scores for poor minorities, much moreso than whites/Asians. So they have all the avenues to succeed, at what point is it not their responsibility?

Godfather.

ed where do we draw the line ? because I am a Christian does that mean I should lay down and let people take from me or my country or is one of those things that "well the Americans can afford it so it's alright to steal it from them" I've heard that before and I still think it's bullshit, you make it sound like these people sneak across the borders with halos and backpacks,in case you haven't noticed there are as many bad guys sneaking across as there are good people, when do we stand up and say enough is enough ? or in your opinion should we ?
I don't know about you and the rest of this forum but I'm tired of it, and now you believe you have knowledge to question my faith because of this ?...come to think of it you've been questioning my faith without ever meeting me, is that right ?
Have a good day my friend.

Godfather.

Blockhead

samsonite wrote:

i can agree that i don't see this as discrimination, though i believe it's a bad idea. and we can all agree that there are people abusing the system, but your generalizations about people receiving public assistance are over the top. i can't imagine there are any 14-16 years-old's getting pregnant because their goal is to be "rewarded" with welfare.

and as for your "parents on welfare are bad parents" theory, that's pretty over the top as well. in january of 2008 i had been married for 12 years and had three kids, 12, 8 and 1. we had never been rich but we were supporting ourselves. then in february i was laid-off from a company i had worked for for 8 years. i searched and searched for a job but found nothing that would support my family. after being out of work for a year i had to get on welfare. i couldn't afford to feed, or clothe, or house my kids - does that make me a bad parent? no, i don't think so. your over-generalizations may sound good when supporting your economic beliefs but they are not reality.

and where is this country giving out free school supplies and clothes because i'm buying every pencil and piece of paper and pair of jeans my children need?

i don't mean to gang up on you but i think the over generalizations are a little much.

If you are a man/wife/girlfriend and are on gov. assistance and decide to have a child I think you are a bad parent because you can't even provide basic needs for your self, let alone another human being, DID you have any savings? I would assume you recieved unemployment.
That does not make you a bad parent because you used the system as it is intended to be used. Studies show that the average of people on welfare are there for at least 8 years. My wife works at an inner city school in the Cincinnati (ohio) area, WE (my wife and I) bought all the school supplies book/notebooks/folders/papers/pencils, for all the 6th grade students because every single day kids would show up without these items and you can't make their parent buy them. A 6th grade girl asked my wife to buy her a backpack my wife told the girl to ask her mom as thats her job. The girl said no, its the schools job to provide what I need for school. I get alot of my "generalizations" from real world experiences. Since December I have been going on home visits with my wife for her school because the areas are so bad, she is afraid to go by herself. Needless to say that students my wife is buying clothes for, their houses have beautiful home theatre systems, surround sound, large flasscreen TV's and their dinner table is a piece of plywood propped up by cinder blocks. They have all these electronics yet can't even buy a winter coat for their kids...

Blockhead

FiveB247x wrote:

No it is not discrimination for your employment because your job may relate to it in some fact. You seem to be ignoring the fact that receiving food stamps or being in need of assistance has zero to do with drug use.

ummm... There is no difference, the gov is paying these people and providing them their basic living needs. Just as a job pays you... Recieving food stamps and needing of assistance has to do with money, if you don't have the money to buy yourself clothes/food/house then logically you certinly don't have the money to buy drugs. If they are finding alot of people on drugs it shows an abuse to the system. Is it discrimination to force people on unemployment to make them apply to at least 3 jobs a week and show proof???

ed243421

Godfather. wrote:

ed where do we draw the line ? because I am a Christian does that mean I should lay down and let people take from me or my country or is one of those things that "well the Americans can afford it so it's alright to steal it from them" I've heard that before and I still think it's bullshit, you make it sound like these people sneak across the borders with halos and backpacks,in case you haven't noticed there are as many bad guys sneaking across as there are good people, when do we stand up and say enough is enough ? or in your opinion should we ?
I don't know about you and the rest of this forum but I'm tired of it, and now you believe you have knowledge to question my faith because of this ?...come to think of it you've been questioning my faith without ever meeting me, is that right ?
Have a good day my friend.

Godfather.

g
no, i do not believe we have ever met
are you going to the 20th anniversary weekend?
i would love to have you over to my campfire
to smoke from my peace pipe and have a nice debate
(no guns allowed)
until then
i do not question your faith
i question when did money become more important than your faith?

FiveB247x

Your unemployment example is exactly correct, because it is directly related to the work. Someone could be a drug addict and hold a full time job, someone could be poor for a million other reasons and not be on drugs... once again, you assume and generalize by saying one goes with the other when it is not true. Please show proof of such if you are gonna say otherwise.

HeidiJam wrote:

ummm... There is no difference, the gov is paying these people and providing them their basic living needs. Just as a job pays you... Recieving food stamps and needing of assistance has to do with money, if you don't have the money to buy yourself clothes/food/house then logically you certinly don't have the money to buy drugs. If they are finding alot of people on drugs it shows an abuse to the system. Is it discrimination to force people on unemployment to make them apply to at least 3 jobs a week and show proof???

ed243421

fiveB247x > heidi

Godfather.

ed243421 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

ed where do we draw the line ? because I am a Christian does that mean I should lay down and let people take from me or my country or is one of those things that "well the Americans can afford it so it's alright to steal it from them" I've heard that before and I still think it's bullshit, you make it sound like these people sneak across the borders with halos and backpacks,in case you haven't noticed there are as many bad guys sneaking across as there are good people, when do we stand up and say enough is enough ? or in your opinion should we ?
I don't know about you and the rest of this forum but I'm tired of it, and now you believe you have knowledge to question my faith because of this ?...come to think of it you've been questioning my faith without ever meeting me, is that right ?
Have a good day my friend.

Godfather.

g
no, i do not believe we have ever met


o.k buddy no guns, what when and where is the 20th anniversary weekend?
if it's local I would like to have a peaceful debate or just listen to what you have to say.

Godfather.

are you going to the 20th anniversary weekend?
i would love to have you over to my campfire
to smoke from my peace pipe and have a nice debate
(no guns allowed)
until then
i do not question your faith
i question when did money become more important than your faith?

samsonite

HeidiJam wrote:

samsonite wrote:

i can agree that i don't see this as discrimination, though i believe it's a bad idea. and we can all agree that there are people abusing the system, but your generalizations about people receiving public assistance are over the top. i can't imagine there are any 14-16 years-old's getting pregnant because their goal is to be "rewarded" with welfare.

and as for your "parents on welfare are bad parents" theory, that's pretty over the top as well. in january of 2008 i had been married for 12 years and had three kids, 12, 8 and 1. we had never been rich but we were supporting ourselves. then in february i was laid-off from a company i had worked for for 8 years. i searched and searched for a job but found nothing that would support my family. after being out of work for a year i had to get on welfare. i couldn't afford to feed, or clothe, or house my kids - does that make me a bad parent? no, i don't think so. your over-generalizations may sound good when supporting your economic beliefs but they are not reality.

and where is this country giving out free school supplies and clothes because i'm buying every pencil and piece of paper and pair of jeans my children need?

i don't mean to gang up on you but i think the over generalizations are a little much.

If you are a man/wife/girlfriend and are on gov. assistance and decide to have a child I think you are a bad parent because you can't even provide basic needs for your self, let alone another human being, DID you have any savings? I would assume you recieved unemployment.
That does not make you a bad parent because you used the system as it is intended to be used. Studies show that the average of people on welfare are there for at least 8 years. My wife works at an inner city school in the Cincinnati (ohio) area, WE (my wife and I) bought all the school supplies book/notebooks/folders/papers/pencils, for all the 6th grade students because every single day kids would show up without these items and you can't make their parent buy them. A 6th grade girl asked my wife to buy her a backpack my wife told the girl to ask her mom as thats her job. The girl said no, its the schools job to provide what I need for school. I get alot of my "generalizations" from real world experiences. Since December I have been going on home visits with my wife for her school because the areas are so bad, she is afraid to go by herself. Needless to say that students my wife is buying clothes for, their houses have beautiful home theatre systems, surround sound, large flasscreen TV's and their dinner table is a piece of plywood propped up by cinder blocks. They have all these electronics yet can't even buy a winter coat for their kids...

yeah, i did have some savings, which was spent on food and rent, etc, what difference does that make? and it's only by the grace of God i had the $12,000 i had because while i was working it took most my pennies to feed my kids.

good on you for helping out the students in need, but you're not a country providing school supplies and clothes. you're a concerned teacher/couple, which is fantastic but that doesn't mean, “…we live in a country that has free education, which provides free books, and all school supplies, free clothes…”

no doubt there are parent's using this money to buy home theater systems, surround sound systems, and large flatscreen tv's, but this is not specific to drug addicts.

and i understand that you may have experience with some of the scenarios you've used, but you've still made sweeping over-generalizations that don't represent reality. your stories may describe one percent, ten percent, even twenty percent of assistance recipients but i don't believe that justifies the over-generalization.

it's all very, very sad.

_

ed243421 wrote:

fiveB247x > heidi

Blockhead

FiveB247x wrote:

Your unemployment example is exactly correct, because it is directly related to the work. Someone could be a drug addict and hold a full time job, someone could be poor for a million other reasons and not be on drugs... once again, you assume and generalize by saying one goes with the other when it is not true. Please show proof of such if you are gonna say otherwise.

HeidiJam wrote:

ummm... There is no difference, the gov is paying these people and providing them their basic living needs. Just as a job pays you... Recieving food stamps and needing of assistance has to do with money, if you don't have the money to buy yourself clothes/food/house then logically you certinly don't have the money to buy drugs. If they are finding alot of people on drugs it shows an abuse to the system. Is it discrimination to force people on unemployment to make them apply to at least 3 jobs a week and show proof???

So it's infringing on people's rights to have requirements before they've given taxpayer money from the government? I don't quite follow.....

FiveB247x

Requirements which pertain the area absolutely makes sense. Low income housing has income requirement, unemployment has employment search requirements, food stamp programs have income and need requirements.. see where I'm going with this? It's all pertinent to the area of need and requirement. Drug use is illegal for all citizens and is not directly pertinent to food stamps or any other program in any manner.

HeidiJam wrote:

So it's infringing on people's rights to have requirements before they've given taxpayer money from the government? I don't quite follow.....

Blockhead

FiveB247x wrote:

Requirements which pertain the area absolutely makes sense. Low income housing has income requirement, unemployment has employment search requirements, food stamp programs have income and need requirements.. see where I'm going with this? It's all pertinent to the area of need and requirement. Drug use is illegal for all citizens and is not directly pertinent to food stamps or any other program in any manner.

HeidiJam wrote:

So it's infringing on people's rights to have requirements before they've given taxpayer money from the government? I don't quite follow.....

Sure it pertains, what if they are failing mulitple pre-employment drug tests? By the way how do Pre-employment drug screening pertain to you being landscape Manager??? Sounds dicriminatory to me, since its illegal for all citizens and is not directly pertinent to managing a landscape crew...

FiveB247x

You're combining several things here at once. Firstly, simply because a specific employer requires testing or a specific number of requirements (background checks, drug testing, etc) does not mean it should be mandatory for all. Secondly, unless it's the law that every employer must check for test x, it remains up to the employer to decide specifications of hiring and testing requirements. That's employment law. Thirdly, you still have not shown any proof there's a direct correlation between the two issues. Lastly, what specifically is the aim of such policy? You haven't answered that directly.. is it to curb corruption in assistance programs? is it to curb drug use? Either way you cut it, this is a very poorly aimed idea to do both.

HeidiJam wrote:

Sure it pertains, what if they are failing mulitple pre-employment drug tests? By the way how do Pre-employment drug screening pertain to you being landscape Manager??? Sounds dicriminatory to me, since its illegal for all citizens and is not directly pertinent to managing a landscape crew...

Blockhead

FiveB247x wrote:

You're combining several things here at once. Firstly, simply because a specific employer requires testing or a specific number of requirements (background checks, drug testing, etc) does not mean it should be mandatory for all. Secondly, unless it's the law that every employer must check for text x, it remains up to the employer to decide specifications of hiring and testing requirements. That's employment law. Thirdly, you still have not shown any proof there's a direct correlation between the two issues. Lastly, what specifically is the aim of such policy? You haven't answered that directly.. is it to curb corruption in assistance programs? is it to curb drug use? Either way you cut it, this is a very poorly aimed idea to do both.

HeidiJam wrote:

Sure it pertains, what if they are failing mulitple pre-employment drug tests? By the way how do Pre-employment drug screening pertain to you being landscape Manager??? Sounds dicriminatory to me, since its illegal for all citizens and is not directly pertinent to managing a landscape crew...

So why can't it remain up to the Gov. to decide the specs of hiring and testing requirements??? Its not a right to recieve tax payer money. There is continual abuse of the welfare system, its pretty ignorant to assume they are all poor people down on their luck. And there is a logical coorelation between them, 40% of Minorities(AA) are on welfare, they make up about 14% of the population in the US. Now take a look at the incarceration stats specific to drugs. At some point in time people need to quit acting like welfare abuse is not an issues. The aim of such policy would be to cut down on ther recreation spending, as they should be focusing on providing for their familys basic needs and use the program for what its there for. Welfare is not a lifestyle but its treated as such.

Blockhead

samsonite wrote:

good on you for helping out the students in need, but you're not a country providing school supplies and clothes. you're a concerned teacher/couple, which is fantastic but that doesn't mean, “…we live in a country that has free education, which provides free books, and all school supplies, free clothes…”

no doubt there are parent's using this money to buy home theater systems, surround sound systems, and large flatscreen tv's, but this is not specific to drug addicts.

and i understand that you may have experience with some of the scenarios you've used, but you've still made sweeping over-generalizations that don't represent reality. your stories may describe one percent, ten percent, even twenty percent of assistance recipients but i don't believe that justifies the over-generalization.

it's all very, very sad.

Thats a vicious pattern my friend... the issue is that the parents do not provide these materials, if me or my wife didn't, these students would not have these supplies, the school can not send children home or punish them for this since its a public school. So what do they do. Nothing.... They just sit there and continue to graduate because your not allowed to fail them. My wife has about 4-5 6th graders who can't even read. How is she supposed to teach when there are kids in her class who can't even read at 6th grade... I help her grade assignments sometime and neither of us can even understand what the kids are writing, I have a 4 year old who can write better than the majority of these 6th graders. The parents never show up for Parent teacher conferences, its a never ending cycle... I think people who don't experience issue like this, really don't know who bad innercity's are and what their lifestyle is like.

FiveB247x

Again, please provide some proof and fact and data backing up your statements.

Also, The government could decide all employers have to test for drugs or have back ground checks, etc.. but in most instances, they leave it up to the employer. But even with this said, the notion that you're aiming to fix corruption in assistance programs by mandating drug testing is very misguided. In fact, it'd probably venture to say more people corrupt the system who are smart enough to get around the laws and receive benefits compared to mis-spending funds on "recreation" as you allude too. Lastly, I find it rather odd that many in our society have no issue telling others how to live their lives because they assume it's somehow taking away from their own tax funds, etc. You make many generalizations which have no real proof other than your inkling or assumptions yet find this be enough to tell millions of people to have to go through testing because of a corrupt few. If we did this in any other area of life, people call that discrimination. Whether the smallest or largest notion, people in our nation want to play both sides of the fence... do we let government run rampant and dictate everything such as national ids, mandatory drug testing for all and every other invasive oversight to buck out corruption and poor action in society or do we use it aptly when it's necessary to the particular area as I have previously mentioned. Should we install mandatory blood alcohol breathalyzers in all cars because there's a portion of society which break the law? Most would say no and that's against your rights, but you and others seem to have no issue with declaring such policies when it is aimed at others and mostly on faulty bias or assumption.

HeidiJam wrote:

So why can't it remain up to the Gov. to decide the specs of hiring and testing requirements??? Its not a right to recieve tax payer money. There is continual abuse of the welfare system, its pretty ignorant to assume they are all poor people down on their luck. And there is a logical coorelation between them, 40% of Minorities(AA) are on welfare, they make up about 14% of the population in the US. Now take a look at the incarceration stats specific to drugs. At some point in time people need to quit acting like welfare abuse is not an issues. The aim of such policy would be to cut down on ther recreation spending, as they should be focusing on providing for their familys basic needs and use the program for what its there for. Welfare is not a lifestyle but its treated as such.

Blockhead

FiveB247x wrote:

Again, please provide some proof and fact and data backing up your statements.

Also, The government could decide all employers have to test for drugs or have back ground checks, etc.. but in most instances, they leave it up to the employer. But even with this said, the notion that you're aiming to fix corruption in assistance programs by mandating drug testing is very misguided. In fact, it'd probably venture to say more people corrupt the system who are smart enough to get around the laws and receive benefits compared to mis-spending funds on "recreation" as you allude too. Lastly, I find it rather odd that many in our society have no issue telling others how to live their lives because they assume it's somehow taking away from their own tax funds, etc. You make many generalizations which have no real proof other than your inkling or assumptions yet find this be enough to tell millions of people to have to go through testing because of a corrupt few. If we did this in any other area of life, people call that discrimination. Whether the smallest or largest notion, people in our nation want to play both sides of the fence... do we let government run rampant and dictate everything such as national ids, mandatory drug testing for all and every other invasive oversight to buck out corruption and poor action in society or do we use it aptly when it's necessary to the particular area as I have previously mentioned. Should we install mandatory blood alcohol breathalyzers in all cars because there's a portion of society which break the law? Most would say no and that's against your rights, but you and others seem to have no issue with declaring such policies when it is aimed at others and mostly on faulty bias or assumption.

HeidiJam wrote:

So why can't it remain up to the Gov. to decide the specs of hiring and testing requirements??? Its not a right to recieve tax payer money. There is continual abuse of the welfare system, its pretty ignorant to assume they are all poor people down on their luck. And there is a logical coorelation between them, 40% of Minorities(AA) are on welfare, they make up about 14% of the population in the US. Now take a look at the incarceration stats specific to drugs. At some point in time people need to quit acting like welfare abuse is not an issues. The aim of such policy would be to cut down on ther recreation spending, as they should be focusing on providing for their familys basic needs and use the program for what its there for. Welfare is not a lifestyle but its treated as such.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that they are recieving Tax Payers Money to live...

JOEJOEJOE

Byrnzie wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

The "bad apples" cause inconvenience for EVERYBODY in the world, no matter what their economic or social standing happens to be.

No they don't. I've never met anyone who's been inconvenienced by someone choosing to smoke weed, or take ecstacy, or LSD at the weekend. It's never bothered me or anyone I've ever known, ever.

Sorry, but I didn't make my point very clear. I was trying to convey that there are bad apples in every economic group, and they cause inconvenience to others.

There are wealthy, poor, educated, uneducated bad apples in the world.

FiveB247x

I completely understand that but we're all still waiting for you to provide some fact to the generalizations you're making.

Also, I find it rather funny that you and many other who are so fiscally responsible for others go nutty bout issues like this, but don't seem to rant and rave about the other significant areas of tax payer dollars which are massively corrupt. Campaign finance, wars and military budgets, lobbying, poor tax laws, people (not poor) living outside of their income level (hint: housing bubble) and the dozens and dozens of areas. But I guess it's just all the minorities and immigrants stealing our tax funds? .. and if we'd fix this one area, the rest will just fall in place and be magically better? It's very, very flawed and misguided blame in a society full of gross misconduct and corruption. It's like handing out a parking meter ticket while ignoring to stop a gunman on a mass murder rampage right in front of you. How's that for a image?

HeidiJam wrote:

You seem to have a hard time understanding that they are recieving Tax Payers Money to live...