Start A Petition

States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Government Services, Welfare, Food Stamps, Unemploment, drug testing )

Dee
- 3741 days ago - news.yahoo.com
CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs. Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Dee C (23)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 5:11 am
Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.
 

Edward H (45)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 8:16 am
I am in FULL support of drug testing for welfare recipients [and/or those receiving benefits on their behalf] as well as jobless benefits.
 

Kit B (276)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 8:34 am
Well, as in all things there are many ways to see this topic. I don't like the use of drug testing, it seems to me to be an invasion of personal rights. Yet many are forced to concede this freedom to get most any job. If the job is driving for a company, handling money or other security risks I could see the benefit to the company...but they do not test for alcohol. Why is it the same people that say they promote absolute freedom only promote freedom for those issues they approve of...don't like public assistance, assume they are all drug addicts. Hardly the attitude of those who stand for freedom, equality and justice for all Americans. I use the Internet and sometimes read articles in newspapers not published in America, guess I should be on the Homeland Insecurity list. We need to read political ideas through a filter of "what does this really mean?" because the chances are it's not what it seems.
 

George R W (63)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 8:55 am
Test em', most of them will fail.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 9:05 am
Edward,

Thanks for the heads up... article is noted!

As you know from other posts, I have a way of looking at issues from a different point of view... are you ready for the "Rogue" comment? :)

Question: Why do we have double standards in this country when it comes to drugs and drug testing? Why do we punish the poor?

For example: If you make 50K or less chances are you will have to have a pre-employment or random drug tests. If you make 70K or more chances are you will not have a pre-employment or random tests!

My wife, a scientist, her managers, VP's and CEO's did not take pre-employment drug tests and are not doing random drug tests... the janitor, the secretary, security guard, and office pool are required and the HR Departments of major corporations also discriminate in this manner... it is common practice for these corporations to test employees below the 50k level far more often to meet the requirements and standards of insurance companies!

A friend of mine, who works for an aviation company, was told at the time of hire... we are required to have a pre-employment drug test... your hired... you need to get it done in 30 days... you will not be tested again... and they use their low paid workers as the way to boost their random drug test requirements to meet FAA rules and regulation, Federal Laws and insurance requirements!

Next point: Do you know how many Police Officers use drugs? Do you know how many Doctors use drugs? Do you know how many managers, VP's and CEO's who smoke a joint at parties? Some of these people have to show a yearly random test rate in the 10% range and they are not testing themselves... so just why are we testing the poor?

Why are we testing the people who were downsized by the very people pointed out in the paragraph above?

 

Past Member (0)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 9:30 am
Next comment: If we are going to punish the poor... why are these law makers not passing the same laws for themselves?

What is wrong with requiring the President of the United States, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, Congress and Senate having random tests? I think the perfect time to demand a urine test is when the come back from spring break, summer break, fall break, Christmas break, Flag day break and Federal Holiday breaks... after all, they seem to be taking a lot a breaks and most of them are anti-tobacco and they are not smoking cigarettes!

Think about it... something is going on with that bunch... they keep passing themselves pay raises while we go broke... their passing stupid idiotic laws that make no sense... they are paranoid about terrorists domestic and foreign... they exempt themselves from gun laws and fear the voters!

So just why are we punishing the person who is down on their luck?

Sure... occasional random tests might not be a bad idea.... but just between you and I and the fence post.... I think the wrong group is being targeted!

;) ;) ;)
 

Edward H (45)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 9:43 am
Good points all...

I don't see it as an invasion of personal rights. I see it as if you want the job, (choice), you do what is necessary, (choice), to obtain that job. Some jobs require a test where you answer questions. To a person who struggles in reading comprehension, this could have devastating consequences on being able to get the job, even though they could be the perfect person for the job. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not, but again, the employers have to do what they can to determine who is the best perspective employee.

As for lower income people and those on public assistance being drug addicts. Many are. My ex-Mother In Law worked for Social Services. Drug use and system abuse is rampant. To the point of second and third generation welfare recipients. Go in an look around. See how many people are filing for help with glassy eyes, slurred words, etc., and then there is the other side. They have no money, but do have boom boxes, iPods, cell phones, gold jewelry, clothes, etc., that hard working individuals with low incomes can't afford.

As for upper management. I have to assume that the companies don't feel it is as much of a problem with them. I do think they too should be tested, but that is up to the employer.

Specifically regarding public assistance, one thing stands out to me. It is "my" money. In my opinion, that makes me their "employer". I do not want to pay for another individuals drug habit. This goes for lifestyle too. I am not interested in redistribution of wealth to those who can't or won't help themselves or to have lifestyle better than I at my expense.

In all cases, random drug testing should be ongoing. Anyone can "pick up the habit" any time...not just before you are hired for a job, and not just when you apply for public assistance.

BTW, I am ALL FOR work relief programs. You want public assistance? Able bodied? Work for it. Free handouts have go to go.
 

Joan Mclaughlin (133)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 10:46 am
If they are going to test these people,lets not forget the judges and officials TOO!After all fair is fair, Right?As long as we are on the subject what about lawyers and college proffessors..Most of these people would be out of work.Then what would you do about the false positives that happen everyday.Make sure you don't ingest poppy seed bagels.What about nedical marijuana cases?There sre two sides to every story.Lets not forget that.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 1:01 pm
The difference between a welfare recipient and a government employee is that a welfare/public assistance recipient is coming to his fellow taxpayers and saying, "I can't afford to feed my family. I can't afford to house myself. I can't afford to support myself without your help."

Therefore, how he spends the money he has (and especially how he spends the money WE give him) is germane to our decision on whether or not to provide assistance. If he is using drugs, then obviously he doesn't need our financial aid. Because obviously he has disposable income to waste on those drugs. Same if he smokes cigarettes. If he has the money for that expensive a habit, he certainly doesn't need my tax dollars.

Unless one is in a high-risk job where a moment's inattention can cause disaster (such as police officers, airline pilots, firefighters, etc.), I don't believe in mandatory drug testing of all employees. I think it should only be done when there is some reason to believe the employee is actually using drugs - and the drug use is believed to in some way negatively impact his job performance.
 

Vicki C (361)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 1:39 pm
Thank you Edward for this thought provoking question. I find myself agreeing with many of the statements stated by "Rogue" in regard of people in professions of doctors, nurses, judges, attorneys,police, etc. who use drugs, and sometimes sell for profit. There should be random testing for anyone who might fall suspect then? There are good people in all walks of life and economic standing and we should not apply labels. People are not cans of soup. We have to be careful that we do not judge others unfairly because of the sins of some.I do believe that a helping hand is better towards reaching a goal than a handout. Give a person a fish and he has dinner for one night, teach him how to fish or farm or whatever and he has a skill for life.
 

Edward H (45)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 1:45 pm
Lindsey O Thursday March 26, 2009, 1:01 pm

While I understand where you are coming from, there is a bit of a "missing" area here:

"Unless one is in a high-risk job where a moment's inattention can cause disaster (such as police officers, airline pilots, firefighters, etc.), I don't believe in mandatory drug testing of all employees."

What about the employee who is working on a bridge and if he doesn't do his job, it can cause failure? What about the guy at some company where chemicals are mixed or high pressure is used and an explosion could be catastrophic? What about the guy who mixes prescriptions, cleans the peanut processing equipment, etc.? The list goes on as to how a seemingly non-high risk job can have disastrous consequences.

...but I LOVE your second paragraph!!!
 

. (0)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 1:57 pm
I agree, Edward, that some of the jobs you mentioned would definitely be included in "high-risk jobs" in terms of bad consequences. But so many jobs aren't in that category. Companies are just protecting themselves against potential liability when they have mandatory drug testing for all, or virtually all employees.
 

Edward H (45)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 2:06 pm
Lindsey O Thursday March 26, 2009, 1:57 pm

"Companies are just protecting themselves against potential liability when they have mandatory drug testing for all, or virtually all employees."

...and why is that a problem in these sue happy United States where personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo bird?
 

. (0)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 4:12 pm
I'd rather see a change in the law which protects companies more from frivolous lawsuits. It's idiotic what companies and product manufacturers have to go through to protect themselves from the idiocy or greed of people.
 

Edward H (45)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 4:48 pm
I agree, but do you REALLY think lawyers are going to pass laws/allow laws to be passed [without a fight] which will stop them from suing?
 

. (0)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 5:03 pm
Lawyers, on the whole, will fight to the death to avoid anything which reduces the litigiousness of our society. I should know - I've worked in the legal field for about half my working life. But it isn't just lawyers - it's ordinary people - both as Plaintiffs and jurors. Who see nothing really wrong with sticking it to the guys with "deep pockets" - and the fact that those deep-pocket Defendants may have done nothing wrong is quite immaterial to those people's minds.
 

Mark G (36)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 5:52 pm
All my jobs since the early 90's were above $70K and ALL required a drug test. In fact if you were a company who tested below $50k (except ones who had government requirements for testing only certain jobs) and not above, you would have a legal problem.
The person handing out the paycheck should have the right to require the test. In the case of the taxpayers handing out the check, I think most would believe requiring the test as a good thing. I certainly would.
 

Carrie H (135)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 7:23 pm
This is Just B.S. on all levels. I don’t agree with drug use, but I do know it is an addiction. For families that have a drug user in them she the children not eat? Is this just another way to demonize welfare recipients as trash. For the single working mother making minimum wage on food stamps should she be subjected to test that accuse her of being a dead beat drug user. Is this just a way to distract us from the welfare we are giving to the banks right now. Our politicians and legislators on the state and local levels are also supported by our tax dollars and get great health packages out of it should we call for them to have monthly cholesterol test nutrition classes and require them to meet mandatory weigh goals so when we the tax payer are paying for their welfare benefits in the form of health care after they leave office they don’t cost us to much with diabetic care, blood pressure problems heart problems and cancer. After they leave office we are taking care of their health needs that is welfare.
 

Dee C (23)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 8:36 pm
On the issue of drug testing for all welfare recipients..I do support it..The funds and or medical/food assistance is not given to anyone for the use of drugs/alcohol..And there is terrible abuse of these government funds that are so misused each and everyday..

In some families that are on welfare..the children who should be receiving better care because of the funds given to them..don't when there are addicts taking away what little they do have to support either a drinking or drug problem..and that is wrong..
They are given funds for shelter..yet many are always being evicted for lack of rent payments..Shut off notices for electric..phone..and so on.. and much is to do with misspending and or drug abuse..
If they are clean..then they have nothing to worry about..

I also believe drug testing should include many work area's that don't have it..State or otherwise..but that really isn't the issue here..

I have two son's both make the high mark in their salaries..and both are tested..One is a State worker..My sister is drug tested..I know many who are who work in many different field..and they are tested..So why shouldn't welfare recipients be..
 

Edward H (45)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 8:57 pm
Ok, so drug use can be/often is an addiction. Why would we want to feed their addiction? What makes you think that the drug user is going to use the welfare money to buy food for the kids instead of their next fix? Why is it demonizing welfare recipients as trash to verify that they need the money AND will use it for the right purposes?
 

Darlene K (356)
Thursday March 26, 2009, 11:23 pm
Edward..., with this issue, I strongly agree to disagree with you, respectfully. With the trillions of debt, this isn't an area that needs the vast costs. Welfare reform has really changed the format of being eligible, and accountability. In Michigan, you have to go to school or work where they send you to collect welfare, and it doesn't matter how many children you have....

I am a bit taken back that anyone would assume those employed didn't do drugs and those unemployed or on welfare..., do drugs. When Welfare Reform hit here, everything changed...., just when less jobs were available...

You don't go to school or work, you don't get welfare. I would like to spend our tax dollars somewhere else. Every state should follow the current Welfare Reform, by now. but, I could be wrong.
 

Kathleen R (983)
Friday March 27, 2009, 1:18 am
Actually, welfare still needs massive reforms. In Ohio recipiant must work or go to school too. However, the work is rarely the type that teaches new skills and the "pay" (benefits) is usually about $2.00 an hour -- "slave wages" they're called. I agree with Joan that if anyone is required to do drug testing then those in charge should also be tested. Furthermore, everyone needs to remember that alcohol is one the very worst drugs. People on welfare are some of the most depressed people around and some drug use helps alleviate domestic violence!!! Besides, drug tests ARE an invasion of privacy and folks forced into poverty should not lose those rights. We tax payers are doing our duty and should not impose our beliefs on people in situations we do not truly nor fully understand. Just because one person accepts being drug tested does not mean that everyone should be. I would suggest that each person here do some extensive research on your states welfare regulations to better understand the entire system and how it benefits and/ot hurts many folks trying hard to get ahead.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 27, 2009, 5:42 am
Mark,

You wrote: "All my jobs since the early 90's were above $70K and ALL required a drug test. In fact if you were a company who tested below $50k (except ones who had government requirements for testing only certain jobs) and not above, you would have a legal problem."

Mark there are always exceptions and there always will be... the fact is that there are a lot of abuses going on and there are double standards... was the CEO of that company you working for submitting to random drug tests? You don't know and can not say one way or the other... all my comment does is point out a very real disparity between the economic classes!

These drug tests are a direct result of the drug crises going on in the United States and Mexico... it is also going on world wide... and there is a lot of propaganda and hidden agendas going on by our government!

For example, recently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented:

"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."

We should not forget that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is an Anti-Gun Nut Democrat who attempted to ban weapons in violation of the 2nd Amendment and it should be mentioned that her recent remarks ignore many facts!

Fact: Corrupt Mexican Politicians, Police, Military and Border Guards are members of the Drugs Cartels and have been smuggling weapons of war from Latin America and China including Machine Guns, Grenades, Rocket Propelled Grenades and Explosives. She fails to mention that these items can not be purchased at gun shows in the United States!

If the United States/Mexican Border is so porous with massive amounts of Cash, Guns, Ammunition and Drugs flowing to each side… then what about Mexico’s southern borders with Latin America? Why doesn’t Mexico do something about illegal aliens from Latin America and South America traveling through Mexico into the United States?

Ask yourself, why do our Border Guards find more drugs and weapons than Mexican Border Guards? Doesn’t Hillary Clinton find that odd? Is Hillary Clinton asking why that is happening? Why doesn’t Mexico do anything about the stolen cars, motorcycles and construction equipment from the United States?

Fact: Corrupt Mexican Politicians and Police have been arrested in the United States illegally purchasing firearms and ammo! Doesn’t Hillary Clinton find it odd that Mexican Politicians and Police come into our country and violate our laws while violating Mexican law? Why isn’t she complaining about all of the Mexican Printing Shops that are producing Fake American ID? You want a Drivers License… name your State and pay twenty-dollars and you can have a counterfeit driver’s license in an hour!

Fact: Corrupt Mexican Military Personnel have stolen Mexican Military Equipment supplied by the United States Government and sold it to the Mexican Drug Cartels… It should also be mentioned that these same corrupt Mexican Military Personnel have left their units taking their military weapons with them and started working directly with the Drug Cartels!

Why doesn’t Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mention this fact? Why doesn’t she address the fact that when Mexican Citizens violate United States immigration laws… that the Mexican Government sends Diplomats to complain about our enforcement of US laws!

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is an Anti-Gun Nut Democrat who is making false, exaggerated, and misleading statements about our country and citizens. She is choosing to conveniently ignore facts in an attempt to support her fears, prejudices and personal Anti-Gun agenda!

This is typical of the Obama Gang's Anti—2nd Amendment Agenda!

If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is truly serious about addressing the illegal drug crises… then she should yank her dress up, drop her panties and pee in a bottle for a drug test. I would like to have proof that her fantasy dream world isn’t drug induced!

If the Democrats and Obama Gang are truly serious about addressing this drug crisis... then drug testing should be mandatory for all elected politicians and it should also be mandatory for the Bankers, CEO’s, Traders and Brokers… whose recent illegal and criminal activities are strong indication of drug abuse!

Think about it... they are after all... the ones with the money!

Just because a person is down on their luck and on welfare does not mean they are on drugs... comments that "my mom works for the state and she sees these people staggering in and slurring their words... " demonstrate hate, prejudice, and ignorance... I am not against drug testing!

But I do find it odd that the huge increase of testing people on the low end of the economic scale has done nothing to slow the drug trade... so maybe we should start testing the people who have all kinds of discretionary funds at their disposal... and stop listening to their lies and demand that they pee in a bottle like you and I have to!
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 27, 2009, 6:08 am
Kathleen,

Good point and I agree that they are being paid slave wages!

Did you know that in addition to those "Slave" wages, many 'Temp Agencies' test their work force 3, 4, 6, times or more each year... and then require that those temp workers pay for the drug testing out of their paychecks?
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 27, 2009, 6:43 am
Open comment:

Folks, we had a delusional paranoid nut case former President and Vice-President who created the massive "Homeland Security Agency!" Billions of dollars was spent securing our Borders from the threat of terrorists and Weapons of Mass Destruction.... we even went to war in a country that produces 90% of the worlds opium and heroin... and our troops walk past the poppy fields and do nothing!

How effective have our Homeland Security Agents been on the Mexican border?

What do we have to show for the Billions and Billions of dollars?

Answer: Lets go after the person on welfare... they are on drugs... they are criminals.... they are the ones committing crimes... they are the ones selling drugs... they are the ones with guns.... there is something wrong with them... they don't want to work... they have gold and diamonds and boom boxes.... Yeah! Lets go after them and all of our problems will be solved!

Billions and Billions and Billions of our tax dollars wasted year after year after year... and all people want to do is demonize the poor... while not doing a thing to address the root causes!
 

. (0)
Friday March 27, 2009, 7:05 am
It's not a question, Rogue, of people on welfare being the "root cause" of any national problem. However, welfare fraud and welfare issues are one of many problems we have to address in our society. We don't just ignore the "smaller" problems while we spend 100% of our time waging the big battles. That would be like instructing the judicial system and the police to completely refuse to arrest and prosecute all non-violent home burglars - so that we can concentrate our resources on the "bigger" crimes. We don't do that - we may concentrate more energy on the larger crimes but we also go after all of them.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 27, 2009, 7:36 am
Lindsey,

I agree with you 100%!

Question: Who created this welfare state that we now live in and why is it that year after year we hear the same complaints about that the fraud?

Here it is 2009 and look at the arguments, comments, and debates going on.... lets go back ten years and look at the arguments, comments, and debates. In fact, lets go back twenty years, thirty years and forty years... has anything changed?



 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 27, 2009, 8:05 am
Open question for all:

Preface: I have stated very clearly that I don't see a problem with drug tests... which some people participating in the debate seem to have missed.

Most of us, myself included, agree that high-risk jobs where a moment's inattention can cause disaster such as police officers, airline pilots, firefighters, doctors and such should be drug tested. Lives are at stake and it is logical to have drug tests to ensure the safety of the public!

Why is the President of the United States exempt from drug tests?
 

Edward H (45)
Friday March 27, 2009, 10:46 am
Rogue F Friday March 27, 2009, 6:43 am

Why is it demonizing the poor to make sure that the handout "I" am willing to give them, if they truly are in need, is going to go towards what they need and not drugs? Why is it wrong for "me" to protect my investment? I don't randomly throw money into the stock market and hope I make something off of it. I don't just research a stock, invest in it and forget about it...I watch over it...why is it wrong to do this with my investment in another individual's life?

Rogue F Friday March 27, 2009, 7:36 am

One of the biggest reasons is because the lawmakers don't want to offend anyone. Look at your reaction to drug testing. Imagine the negative reaction of all the people who feel as you do. Fewer votes, no reelection...therefore, don't offend anyone and fix the system...leave it alone and get reelected. Politicians, for the MOST part, are in it for themselves and not to help their constituents. They pander to groups of voters and not the populous.

Rogue F Friday March 27, 2009, 8:05 am

"Why is the President of the United States exempt from drug tests?"

Because he didn't inhale? Oh, wrong President...
It depends on your definition of [pick a word]? Oh, wrong President...
Is (s)he? I never actually saw a job description, application or an "employee" handbook...
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 27, 2009, 12:30 pm
Edward,

I wrote: "Sure... occasional random tests might not be a bad idea.... but just between you and I and the fence post.... I think the wrong group is being targeted!"

I also wrote: "I have stated very clearly that I don't see a problem with drug tests... "

You know from visiting my homepage that I am against discrimination in all its hidden and subtle forms.... and all I am saying is if we are going to start down this path... don't single out a group.... and we should be testing a bunch of other people as well!
 

Jessica Robinson (210)
Friday March 27, 2009, 1:30 pm
I actually posted this as a poll to Care2 at one time! I am all for drug testing for welfare!
 

Edward H (45)
Friday March 27, 2009, 2:13 pm
Rogue F Friday March 27, 2009, 12:30 pm

Going back and reading what I wrote sounds like I meant you were all angry about it...my apologies. I didn't meant it that way. My point was look at how you feel about, I feel about, others feel about it. Some are logical, some irrational, many that would be required to get the testing would oppose it as a violation of rights, (somehow thinking they have a right to MY money, but shouldn't have to answer for it). It is the typical political pandering over a group of voters that the politicians don't want to make angry.

I don't, however, see this as singling out a group. It's tied to the money, not the people. Abuse the "system" and no public assistance. Follow the rules, and you get public assistance.

Jessica Robinson Friday March 27, 2009, 1:30 pm

Just curious, was this a federal petition or a state by state petition?
 

. (0)
Friday March 27, 2009, 2:32 pm
I agree, Edward, that the "singling out" is tied to the money, not the people.

Rather like when I loaned money to a very dear friend, who was desperate to buy a car after hers conked out, and didn't have enough for the downpayment. We worked together and I knew that she ate lunch at a restaurant every single day. My condition for loaning the money was that she stopped eating out until she paid me back. Because I felt that if she could afford to spend that much money on lunches out then she could damned well figure out how to pay for the downpayment on her own car. And if she stopped eating out, she could pay me back that much sooner! And she did.
 

Jessica Robinson (210)
Friday March 27, 2009, 7:43 pm
Hi Edward! It was actually just a poll that you can submit here at C2 to have people vote on. I wanted to see how many people at the website would agree or disagree with the whole testing before gov funding. C2 didn't post the poll though.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 27, 2009, 9:03 pm
out come - guy doesn't pass the test - he has no food stamps
now he goes out and steals food - becomes a criminal - ends up in prison costing the tax payers extra $$$$ and all because he wasn't clean on a drug test for food stamps...
 

Dee C (23)
Friday March 27, 2009, 9:09 pm
Or..he could get help and get clean..not become a criminal with a drug habit..Get a job..or even school..and still get his benefits until he is on his feet again..

That is after all what the welfare system was meant to be..and should be..


 

. (0)
Friday March 27, 2009, 9:51 pm
Sounds like a great "protection racket", Phrend.

"Give me welfare benefits or I'll turn to a life of crime and make you really, really sorry you didn't pay up!"
 

Edward H (45)
Saturday March 28, 2009, 10:37 am
Phrend Z Friday March 27, 2009, 9:03 pm

Serious flaws in your thinking, but we'll help you.

First and foremost, if he failed the drug test he was already a criminal. Now...

"guy doesn't pass the test - he has no food stamps"
Gets help in program, food and shelter, family still gets food stamps.

"now he goes out and steals food - becomes a criminal - ends up in prison costing the tax payers extra $$$$ and all because he wasn't clean on a drug test for food stamps..."

Got clean, doesn't further his criminal activities, able to get and hold a job or go to school, obtain vocational skills, improve his and his family's life. Helps others now that he is a contributing member of society instead of a drain on society or a statistic, (dead or in prison most likely).

Dee C and Lindsey O...good points...
 

Edward H (45)
Saturday March 28, 2009, 10:38 am
Oops, didn't separate quote from response, but so it isn't missed in my previous post:

"guy doesn't pass the test - he has no food stamps"

Gets help in program, food and shelter, family still gets food stamps.
 

Gillian M (218)
Saturday March 28, 2009, 12:49 pm
In the City o f London a high proportion of £10 notes have traces of cocaine on them. This indicates that a lot of the people who wrok there snort cocaine, these are intelligent middle class workers. Alcohol is also a damaging expensive drug as is tobacco. Many working class people smoke & drink and do not provide for their children. However, you cannot clump all of the working class together and say that they are all like that. Some of them were disadvantaged as children and unable to get out of the poverty trap but are trying hard to get their children out.

Many of the drug users and suppliers who go through court are middle class. We also have the upper/aristocracy and they are well known for drinking and drugs. I cannot believe that the society in America is very different to the UK and this means that many people who are working and their families are taking drugs and alcohol. All people need to be tested, especially those in jobs such as doctors, police, fire brigrade (high stress jobs) as well as solicitors and anyone else in a high stress job or position of responsibilty needs to be monitored.
 

Gillian M (218)
Saturday March 28, 2009, 12:51 pm
I should add that there is a drug and an alcohol programme both free and freely available to anyone who wants to get off and may be required to do it if convicted of a crime in the UK.
 

Jack B. (0)
Monday March 30, 2009, 7:48 am
I work for a drug testing organization in Ohio and I can tell you that every drug free workplace program tests "all" employees, not just lower income employees. And yes, that includes presidents, VPs and other executives. In some cases CEOs and board members are not employees and are not required to test but in the majority of companies testing (80% +) they voluntarily test.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.