Kentucky

[Heather]

The state of Kentucky is making headlines with their new law that requires anyone who is receiving any form of state or federal aide to pass a drug test to qualify.  As currently written, House Bill 208 states that random drug testing would be required for adults who get food stamps, Medicaid or other state assistance! 

It is MY OPINION that if people want to do drugs then it is their body and their choice, BUT if they want the tax payers to support them then bring on the testing!!! What are your thoughts on this?

Heather

[blind ear]

I sent this to the people in my contacts. ear

[guzzijohn]

I do not have a problem with the concept, just the execution of it. Over the years there have been too many errors both ways with drug testing. 99.9% accuracy (which I doubt accuracy is that good.) does not cut it when peoples careers, reputation, etc. are at stake. As long as humans are involved nothing will be 100% correct.
GuzziJohn

[dukkillr]

It's a good idea provided you have the stomach for the consequences.  I'd love to see it extended to alcohol and nicotine as well.  If you're too poor to pay for your own food and/or healthcare, those are the first things that should go, followed by cable TV.

I think in the areas where this idea has failed it has ultimately been because the local government does not have a plan for what to do next.  A mother of 4 test positive for pot trying to get food stamps...  You turn her away?  You need to understand what happens next.  More crime, more homelessness, more kids in the fostercare system.  Each of those things also costs taxpayer money... it's just a matter knowing what is cheaper, what is better for your community today, and what is better for the community tomorrow. 

You can't pick your parents, and each of us could just as easily have been the child of a drug addicted single mother as anyone else.  It's not an easy topic to make bright lines, at least for me.

[Sourdough]

I"m behind it 100%.  If they take public assistance then they should be tested. 

A good friends Daughtor found out her Husband was doing Meth.  She gave him the boot.  Next thing we heard was he was fired, due to his meth habit.  He had been making over $130.00 a year when they were married.  Today he hangs out at the unemployment office picking up day labor jobs.  Everything he makes goes into meth.  Yet the state pays his rent, and utilities.  Why should we the tax payer support him, when he refuses to support himself.

I know in Turkey, drug users are put in prison.  If family does not come and feed them every day, they starve.  Kind of a cruel way to do it, but it serves a purpose.  Gets them off the street, and solves the problem of someone having to take care and support them the rest of their lives.  I have heard the Chinese have a simple solution, sounds a bit harsh, but a problem solver. 

In a small community like here in North Pole we pretty much know who the drug users are.  We see them in the grocery lines using WIC certificates, and state issued debit cards.  This burns me up since I know people that are really deserving for those programs, and these low lifes are also using them giving the legitamate users a bad name. 

[Old Fart]

We will have to pay for all these people one way or the other.
I guess the big question is which way are we willing to pay?

Some times when change hits, it seems like a bad thing at first.
But we have to ask ourselves what motivates people who might fall into this category?

[powderman]

HEATHER. I support it 100%. If the kids go to foster care they will have a better life and probably be better off physically and mentally as well. They would be better off in most cases. Here in Kentucky the house has already passed a law mirroring the AZ law against illegals, and is considering a law DENYING citizenship to children of ILLEGALS. The pantywetters are having a hissy fit, tough cookies. POWDERMAN. 

[Brett]

I look at it like this. The majority of us are subjected to random drug test in order to keep collecting our hard earned pay checks so why shouldn't welfare recipients be subject to the same requirements.   

[Casull]

It's a good idea provided you have the stomach for the consequences.  I'd love to see it extended to alcohol and nicotine as well.  If you're too poor to pay for your own food and/or healthcare, those are the first things that should go, followed by cable TV.

I think in the areas where this idea has failed it has ultimately been because the local government does not have a plan for what to do next.  A mother of 4 test positive for pot trying to get food stamps...  You turn her away?  You need to understand what happens next.  More crime, more homelessness, more kids in the fostercare system.  Each of those things also costs taxpayer money... it's just a matter knowing what is cheaper, what is better for your community today, and what is better for the community tomorrow. 

You can't pick your parents, and each of us could just as easily have been the child of a drug addicted single mother as anyone else.  It's not an easy topic to make bright lines, at least for me.

Duk, that must be some stream of consciousness thinking.  Otherwise, I find it hard to follow how you can have concerns about the children of drug users, but would "LOVE" to see it extended to legal products like tobacco and alcohol.   

[no guns here]

Yep, had to pass the Golden Flow test every year, sometimes several months in a row for the last 23 years.  No reason the losers shouldn't have to pass the same test to get their money.


NGH

[dukkillr]

It's a good idea provided you have the stomach for the consequences.  I'd love to see it extended to alcohol and nicotine as well.  If you're too poor to pay for your own food and/or healthcare, those are the first things that should go, followed by cable TV.

I think in the areas where this idea has failed it has ultimately been because the local government does not have a plan for what to do next.  A mother of 4 test positive for pot trying to get food stamps...  You turn her away?  You need to understand what happens next.  More crime, more homelessness, more kids in the fostercare system.  Each of those things also costs taxpayer money... it's just a matter knowing what is cheaper, what is better for your community today, and what is better for the community tomorrow. 

You can't pick your parents, and each of us could just as easily have been the child of a drug addicted single mother as anyone else.  It's not an easy topic to make bright lines, at least for me.

Duk, that must be some stream of consciousness thinking.  Otherwise, I find it hard to follow how you can have concerns about the children of drug users, but would "LOVE" to see it extended to legal products like tobacco and alcohol.   

Yeah, it was.  What I was really getting at was that I like the idea, on it's face, but worry about the execution when it comes to kids who don't have any choice.  Simple minds will tout simple solutions, but this is a complicated issue when kids are involved, at least for me.  On the whole, I like the idea, just worried about the execution...

[eye shot]

That law has a defect, random. They all should be tested!

[jimster]

I look at it like this. The majority of us are subjected to random drug test in order to keep collecting our hard earned pay checks so why shouldn't welfare recipients be subject to the same requirements.

I feel the same way, drug tests required to get a job where I work, ramdon tests required for all truck drivers and hi-lo drivers.

It is MY OPINION that if people want to do drugs then it is their body and their choice, BUT if they want the tax payers to support them then bring on the testing!!! What are your thoughts on this?

Yes, good point, considering the fact that tax payers do not support me, I am the one who supports everything with my money, so this is a very good point.

If parents can't receive welfare or other things to sustain their life because of drugs, then I guess they lose their kids as well, either way we will pay for something, but in the end after a number of years go by, many people will learn that by doing drugs they get no help from us tax payers, things at least have a chance of getting a little bit better in some area's.  Or at the very least, they figure out where the foods stamps and welfare comes from...which they might not think about now.

[mcwoodduck]

I think it is a good start.
I would like to see the states create different groups and make the people on welfare show up daily.
Group 1 would go out and pick up trash on the sides of the road.
group 2 would make food for all the other groups.
group 3 would clean up play grounds, parks.  Paint and do minor city, county, or state maintence.
Group 4 would watch all the kids for the other groups.
group 5 would attend classes at the local JR college.
All would swap places every week.
all would take a drug test.

[powderman]

That law has a defect, random. They all should be tested!

YEP. POWDERMAN. 

[Spirithawk]

Missouri is planning the same. I think it's a good idea. There are way too many who truly need and deserve help to allow those that don't to abuse it.

[Pat/Rick]

I don't have a problem with recipients of public funds being tested for illegal drugs at all. I have to pay taxes, I should not be mandated to support an illegal drug user. The gov't wants a war on drugs, yet they support the users?

FURTHERMORE; I believe ALL members of the  federal government be subject to  mandatory U.A.'s on a monthly basis.

Wanna smoke,drink, or use illegal drugs? do it on YOUR dime.

I support this type of legislation.

[powderman]

FURTHERMORE; I believe ALL members of the  federal government be subject to  mandatory U.A.'s on a monthly basis.

Wanna smoke,drink, or use illegal drugs? do it on YOUR dime.

I support this type of legislation.



YEP. Some of the legislation these congresscritters propose and support it sure seems like they are on some kind of illegal drugs. POWDERMAN. 

[Hooker]

Some very interesting views .
I like the idea of testing them and I realize like all forms of crime and punishment along those who are not at fault will pay part of the penalty.
Such is life. Yeah I know that sounds cruel but that's life again. I'm willing to bet that faced with a life with no hand outs most will take on responsibility rather than starve. And for those that don't they only have themselves to blame. Allowing these layabouts to continue their ways is far more cruel than making them stand on their own.

Pat

[blind ear]

FURTHERMORE; I believe ALL members of the  federal government be subject to  mandatory U.A.'s on a monthly basis.

Wanna smoke,drink, or use illegal drugs? do it on YOUR dime.

I support this type of legislation.



YEP. Some of the legislation these congresscritters propose and support it sure seems like they are on some kind of illegal drugs. POWDERMAN.  >:(quote



Yes !  ear

[Brett]

Alcohol and tobacco are legal substances...marihoochee maybe soon. Legally, can you make people take drug test if they are not breaking the law when it comes to qualifing for some program....Constitutionally speaking? To keep a job is a different matter.  Sounds like a good idea in concept, but wrought with difficuties in implementation and in social theory.


.TM7
.   

Why would it be Constitutional as a requirement for employment but not for a social service?   Or vice-versa for that matter?   Seems to me drug testing is either Constitutional or it is not.   

[williamlayton]

Be careful what you pray for.
There are some folks out there that consider gun owneship to be a sign of a defective personality----and----some of those folks write laws.
Blessings

[powderman]

Why would it be Constitutional as a requirement for employment but not for a social service?   Or vice-versa for that matter?   Seems to me drug testing is either Constitutional or it is not.   



BRETT. I see no difference either. POWDERMAN. 

[magooch]

The law ought to be that all liberals must adopt a homeless person, or family and pay their way.  They (the liberals) would get to decide if the losers get to do drugs, booze and smokes.  If there aren't enough libs, the losers have to go live in a group commune where they would have to work at something to support the commune.

[Savage .250]

I look at it like this. The majority of us are subjected to random drug test in order to keep collecting our hard earned pay checks so why shouldn't welfare recipients be subject to the same requirements.

   Spot On!   

[Casull]

Why would it be Constitutional as a requirement for employment but not for a social service?   Or vice-versa for that matter?   Seems to me drug testing is either Constitutional or it is not.   

That's quite simple.  Individuals can do many things that the government cannot.  The Constitution places limits on government, not on citizens (or businesses).

[Brett]

No one forces them to receive welfare or any other social service, they sign up voluntarily just as we do when we agree to work for an employer.   If we don't agree with the employers terms we don't accept the job.   Same could be said for welfare recipients.  No one is forcing them to accept welfare.  If they do not agree to the terms... oh well.   

[powderman]

Sadly, drugs is a much bigger problem than most of us realize. At  walmart I saw it take 6-8-10 applicants to pass a drug test. Many would refuse to go, others were tested but never came back. The dairy mgr went through 18 applicants til one passed the drug test. HEH, the 18th worked a week and quit, so the whole process started over again. POWDERMAN. 

[dukkillr]

Maybe part of that is the type of people who apply at Wal-Mart? 

[blind ear]

Posted by: dukkillr
« on: Today at 12:07:10 PM » Insert Quote

"Maybe part of that is the type of people who apply at Wal-Mart? "

Do they compare to the group that applies for public assistance? ear