TO PEE OR NOT TO PEE?

Tejano, you have a bit of a point so I say we start with those who are getting handouts without working first then move on to the working folks!

LC, I could not agree more. Excellent idea!

~D

Makes more sense to test goverment employees who have more disposable income to buy recreational drugs and impact our lives...poor people are protected by the same consttution. As everyone else

I thinks tejano needs to be drug tested!

Why don't we just agree that using mandatory drug testing as a criteria for receiving taxpayers money is just not a very thought out idea!

because i think it would be the marvelous idea.

Funny how on this board of all places people can be so self righteous!

If it'll keep the arguments down to a minimum. I'll PEE. And I don't need no F'ng cup either! Sit down, sh*t up and enjoy it! Naked that is.

Not self righteous just required to take a piss test to remain employed to pay excess taxes.

I'm done!

Funny how on this board of all places people can be so self righteous! Originally Posted by tejano

Funny he should mention that "here of all places" thing about this board. Its like saying he doesnt respect any of us here.

I think that yeah if people are not gonna work and get handouts from the government that they need to show that they are honest people. They need to verify to some small standard that they can be trusted with our hard earned money to use it how it was intended. Its almost the same way references are used for providers to "screen" clients. You wouldnt just let anyone enter your residence (well some people do), w/o verifying that they are a) here for business, and b) passed a minimal standard for honesty and trust.

The idea needs some work but yeah, your on the right track to something good.

Funny he should mention that "here of all places" thing about this board. Its like saying he doesnt respect any of us here. Originally Posted by Skyber

He may have just implied that this board is very open minded and is in shock that most of the posters disagreed with him.

Then again, he was very aggressive with his own response.

We are all entitled to our own opinions. This is a hypothetical situation. My opinion is that they should pay for their own drug test to receive benefits. Unfortunately, that opens up a whole new set of problems.

There is no win in this scenario.

Stopping the cycle of dependency will require radical ideas. Drug testing would be too costly and too easily scammed. I believe having children is the greatest contributor to proverty. Whether the mother is unmarried or married, teenage or adult, if she is unable to raise the child without government assistance, she shouldn't be having kids. Once she asks for gov't aid, prenatal or after, she should not be allowed to birth any more babies. Implanting a long lasting birth control device to prevent additional pregnancies, that can be removed when she can provide for herself and her progeny may be a partial solution. I realize this will never occur for numerous reasons (civil liberties, racial politics, ad nauseum) but I thought it would be something to debate.