URINE TEST.............

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, some people are
required to pass a random urine test with which they
have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution
of our 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
butt, 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 ?????

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if
you don't. Hope you all will pass it along,
though..... something has to change in this country
and soon!!!

I'll sign on with your point of view James. Plus one!

Such a test would never be imposed upon the parasites. THEY have "rights". My lawn mower wore out. I had to drive through the "projects" on my lunch hour to get to my bank to take some money out of savings to replace it. Times were hard and my wife and I were struggling to get out of the 'Hood. There on the stoop was a man drinking a malt liquor watching a city employee mow the grass in front of him. This unfortunate gets free housing, free medical care, free food, and even free lawn care. I can't afford health insurance, being a former cancer patient (and one again). I'll never forget that day. At some point, the system will break. It will be like New Orleans all over. As soon as the "entitlements" and life support are disrupted, all hell will break loose. In the mean time, those who provide the funds for this life of leisure for others must suffer all manner of indignities. But the system will break. Be ready for revolution when it does.

Every Sunday evening, I shoot pool in a league. After all matches were concluded this past Sunday, I had a beer with one of the guys I had played against and his friend. Both of these guys were among the many who fled S.E. Asia to escape Communism. One guys crossed the Mekong river, by himself at the age of eight. He'd been seperated from his family.

Anyway both these men, who spoke somewhat broken English, said they were discriminated against and harrassed by another minority group, becasue they were imigrants. Both these guys came to this country, overcame a language barrier and worked hard to make a live for themselves and their families. They too, were contemptuous of those who have made a lifetime of living off the fruits of someone else's labor.

I should probably bow out of this thread becasue this is one of the topics that really gets me going. Suffice it to say, I am in full agreement with JB and Horn Dog. Having lived on the South side of Chicago for many years, my skin is particularly thin.

I've read that before, and agree with it completely.

I never pondered that particular point. I have to agree with it. It is a sensitive subject. I have always been on the strong side of you made your own bed sleep in it. I am slowing changing. At some point the million and billionaires exploiting the population have a right to support and aid those less fortunate. How much money do you truly need? If we spent is much money reforming welfare as we did on the war in Irag, it would likely cease to exist.

Isn't it amazing what many immigrants overcome to be successful and prosperous in the USA? Those of us who were born here should be able to do even better, but it is often not the case. Something does need to change, but I think more and more that such change will not come without some serious social upheaval. There are those who feel entitled to the fruits of the labor of others. We have all seen the dismal failure of totalitarian welfare states around the globe. Rulers pit one group against another to maintain their power. At some point, economic collapse occurs. Then chaos. Like James, I have no problem helping folks out who have fallen on hard times. It can happen to anyone. But we must change this culture of hate and entitlement or our entire economic system and the social order will surely collapse.

Personally I think any urine test should be illegal under the fifth amendment(we have a similar statute in Canada) against self incrimination and all drug use should be legal for adults.
I don't see any difference between someone saying that they should be allowed to own a gun as a responsible adult and someone saying that they should be allowed to
decide what drugs they put in their system as a responsible adult. Some people here feel they don't want to use drugs so why should anyone else be allowed?
That is no different than some san fransisco liberal saying you should not be allowed to own guns because he does not feel the need for them.

Prohibition did not work with alcohol and it is definitly not working with drugs.
Neither drugs or guns are harmfull when used responsibly. When people use either of them irresponsibly they should be punished according to the harm they cause and should not be able to blame either drugs or "gun violence" for their own actions.

People should be held responsible for their actions and have absolute freedom so long as it does not interfere with someone else's.

Spoken like a true libertarian, Unsub. I consider drug tests without probable cause or evidence of impairment to be invasive and unreasonable search and seizure. But if an employer requires it of an employee and that employee agrees to such tests as a condition of employment, I think the employee has no case. This insane "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. All drugs should be lawful for adults and regulated as we do alcohol. If you want to smoke rat poison, the only thing the government should do is insure the purity of that poison. As any one knows, drugs are available everywhere through illegal vendors. We have no control over them BECAUSE they are illegal.

I agree in theory but the very people you are aiming this test at would cheat it using bags of other peoples urine taped under their armpits etc( it would be impossible to police )....believe me I know about these things !!!!

Not to mention the billions in tax revenue and savings from not having to lock up harmless drug offenders. You would think that conservatives would be against prohibition on simple economic grounds.

I would not "aim" drug tests at anyone if drugs were legal. But if a driver was driving under the influence of a drug that impaired his driving, and it was observed, then a case could and should be made. If employers want to make drug testing a conditon of employment---only to determine if that employee was intoxicated while on duty, I think that is reasonable, especially in jobs where public safety is an issue. Just my opinion. Personally, I try to stay OFF my medications and do not need or want any form of intoxication most of the time. But on occasion, I like to have a few beers and get a little buzz now and then. Especially at oyster roasts and barbeques.