Lawmakers Finally Propose Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients

Funny, but also sad at the same time...

-Mike

Well, thank you... somethings are funny because people think they are true.

I would guess that well over 50% of my clients drug test employees before hiring them. It IS NOT an option to get tested, it is required if you want the job. SO, seems ironic that an employer can require it as a condition of your employment, but people will be outraged if this is put on welfare as a stipulation.
 
This will never happen because:

1) it is racist and discriminatory
2) entitlement recipients are in fact ENTITLED to our hard-earned money
3) if you are on drugs, it is because you are a victim of the system. It is not your fault, it is the system. Hard working tax paying people are to blame for your condition, and as such they will be expected to take care of you financially

God Bless America

I think it is funny. The reason I think it is funny is because I could literally repeat what you just said to some people that I work with and they would look at me with a straight face and completely agree with what I said. And then I would puke baby seal meat everywhere.
 
Minor quibble: Open carry is quite legal in NH. Therefore, you can own (keep) and carry (bear) arms without a permit.

No rights need be violated.

The problem is now the law has stated "you can only carry under these circumstances".

So then we have to consider the question of:

Are forced open carry, and not being able to carry a loaded gun in a motor vehicle, reasonable restrictions of rights? (this is the test, after all... ) You -need- a permit in NH to dodge both of these problems legally.

To me they certainly aren't reasonable. (Course, SCOTUS has said that some things are, but frankly I
think what the supremes were thinking and what the founders would think, the founders would be pissed
if they heard it. ) [laugh]

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Oh boy... as a Libertarian everything about this bothers me--

A. The fact that welfare exists
B. The fact that drugs are illegal
C. The fact that anyone, left, right or center would ever think it's a good idea for agents of the state to be forcing U.S. citizens to urinate in a cup to test for illegal substances without probable cause- anyone for a mandatory drug test to get a LTC? Why not? You have nothing to hide, right?

If you don't like people selling food stamps for drugs or lottery tickets, stop issuing food stamps, but keep the state out of the piss testing business (and keep them out of the lottery business while you're at it)

I mostly agree with you on this with very small differences:
A. I agree with this being a problem, but the fact is it does exist and with the current political climate, it's not going to be abolished.
B. Again I agree with this, drugs should be legal, but if you're going to be accepting a taxpayer handout then you should not be allowed to do anything that degrades or diminishes your performance on anything - because the point of welfare is to give people who aren't living up to their necessity for survival a helping hand. Drugs should be legalized - but if we're giving someone money to assist in their survival it shouldn't be spent on drugs.
C. This is the one I have a problem with. Welfare is not a constitutional right like the right to bear arms is. No one is forcing anyone to collect welfare, and therefore no agent of the government is forcing anyone to piss in a cup. If you want to collect taxpayer money, these are the conditions...It must be spent on those things necessary for survival, not luxuries. That includes drugs, booze, cigarettes, lottery tickets (I might even go so far as to include non staple foods like soda or "high end" foods).

But if we abolish welfare we solve problem C. If we abolish welfare and make all drugs legal, we could probably cut taxes in half.
 
I think this is a bad idea, mainly because there are individuals who don't pay taxes who should probably still have the right to vote. (Some retired folks, veterans, or just old people under the care of others... ) Anyone who is a "free" adult US citizen should have the right to vote, period. Once you start making exceptions for something which should be a right then you eventually end up with a voting permit that comes from the mayor, with 3 letters of reference and a suitability clause. Sounds great in principle, but then when you think of the slippery slope it gets pretty scary.


-Mike


I suppose there should be exceptions. And those could easily be made (military, of course, or people that paid their taxes their whole life and now do not have a job).


But by and large I feel very much like are the loan sheep with the two wolves (gov money getters and govt law makers) voting on what to have for dinner.
 
Back
Top Bottom