Since it is "our" money we should have a say in the matter... I say test them all.
Quote:
Quote:
Florida welfare drug testing
- Thread starter CityGirlintheCountry
- Start date
Do not overlook the fact that a certain % of the applicants will drop out if they know they are dirty. This figure/fact is going to help without an actual test. I used to do hiring for a large construction company we did UA's and about half the people or more would not show up for the test, case solved.
Quote:
Good point.
It hurts a little agreeing with you on this subject.
No offense.
Good point.
It hurts a little agreeing with you on this subject.
Where does it hurt I am not a doctor but I may take a look.
Quote:
Good point.
It hurts a little agreeing with you on this subject.
No offense.
Quote:
Good point.
It hurts a little agreeing with you on this subject.
Quote:
Good point.
It hurts a little agreeing with you on this subject.
No offense.
Thanks for the offer but I think I will survive.
Good point.
It hurts a little agreeing with you on this subject.
Thanks for the offer but I think I will survive.
I was a supervisor back then and got real upset when I would find needles in the work areas so any drug testing I am for. I also had to send injured workers to a drug test after an accident and you may guess what the results usually were.
- Apr 4, 2010
- 4,174
- 13
- 251
Quote:
x2 lol we had this thread already once
x2 lol we had this thread already once
Quote:
Quote:
I really agree with these statements above.
While I don't fully agree, I think there were some valid points:
Quote:
I don't think there is a 100% perfect answer. I deal with weighing pros and cons of situations all day long with work, and then again all day long moderating this forum!
IMO, I think the pros, especially in areas where there may be a lot of abuse for the system, this is a good step. Some schools have metal detectors, some don't. Maybe areas where there is abuse you have this program and when the numbers increase, you reduce or eliminate the program.
The problem is limited resources. I'd love to see the people who are "clean" and deserve help get more at the expense of those that are addicted to drugs taking advantage of the system. From what I understand, most states have help programs for drug addicts to get clean. IMO, not getting welfare until they come clean is a win-win!
Quote:
This is a whole 'nother discussion, but you're preaching to the choir on that one! If it was a perfect world, there would be very clear and easy ways to determine who really "needed" the money and who doesn't.
I have friends who are getting support and, IMO, shouldn't be. They aquired nice things because they were living outside of their means. During "years of plenty" they ate drank and became merry, but when famine came they were like the grasshopper who didn't prepare! They lived better than I did / do and should reap what they sow (or didn't). That's why I give all my charitable help-the-poor money to my Church. I figure if they screw up who they give it to, that's on their heads and between them and God, but I'm off the hook!
Regarding this kind of "invasion of privacy" being the beginning of the end of privacy as we know it. IMO, that is a super extremist point of view and could be applied to everything government related. Government in moderation isn't bad. We just have to be careful about where that line of moderation is. In some cases, it should be extended, in others, maybe not so much. I think this whole "GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY WILL TAKE ALL YOUR PRIVACY!!" is EXACTLY like the argument I hear every month from cities that don't want to allow chickens: "If we allow chickens, then what!?!?! Pigs, sheep, goats, cows!?!? It will not stop with chickens, so we can't allow people to have them!!"
Quote:
I really agree with these statements above.
While I don't fully agree, I think there were some valid points:
Quote:
I don't think there is a 100% perfect answer. I deal with weighing pros and cons of situations all day long with work, and then again all day long moderating this forum!
The problem is limited resources. I'd love to see the people who are "clean" and deserve help get more at the expense of those that are addicted to drugs taking advantage of the system. From what I understand, most states have help programs for drug addicts to get clean. IMO, not getting welfare until they come clean is a win-win!
Quote:
This is a whole 'nother discussion, but you're preaching to the choir on that one! If it was a perfect world, there would be very clear and easy ways to determine who really "needed" the money and who doesn't.
I have friends who are getting support and, IMO, shouldn't be. They aquired nice things because they were living outside of their means. During "years of plenty" they ate drank and became merry, but when famine came they were like the grasshopper who didn't prepare! They lived better than I did / do and should reap what they sow (or didn't). That's why I give all my charitable help-the-poor money to my Church. I figure if they screw up who they give it to, that's on their heads and between them and God, but I'm off the hook!
Regarding this kind of "invasion of privacy" being the beginning of the end of privacy as we know it. IMO, that is a super extremist point of view and could be applied to everything government related. Government in moderation isn't bad. We just have to be careful about where that line of moderation is. In some cases, it should be extended, in others, maybe not so much. I think this whole "GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY WILL TAKE ALL YOUR PRIVACY!!" is EXACTLY like the argument I hear every month from cities that don't want to allow chickens: "If we allow chickens, then what!?!?! Pigs, sheep, goats, cows!?!? It will not stop with chickens, so we can't allow people to have them!!"
Quote:
Quote:
I really agree with these statements above.
While I don't fully agree, I think there were some valid points:
Quote:
I don't think there is a 100% perfect answer. I deal with weighing pros and cons of situations all day long with work, and then again all day long moderating this forum!
IMO, I think the pros, especially in areas where there may be a lot of abuse for the system, this is a good step. Some schools have metal detectors, some don't. Maybe areas where there is abuse you have this program and when the numbers increase, you reduce or eliminate the program.
The problem is limited resources. I'd love to see the people who are "clean" and deserve help get more at the expense of those that are addicted to drugs taking advantage of the system. From what I understand, most states have help programs for drug addicts to get clean. IMO, not getting welfare until they come clean is a win-win!
Quote:
This is a whole 'nother discussion, but you're preaching to the choir on that one! If it was a perfect world, there would be very clear and easy ways to determine who really "needed" the money and who doesn't.
I have friends who are getting support and, IMO, shouldn't be. They aquired nice things because they were living outside of their means. During "years of plenty" they ate drank and became merry, but when famine came they were like the grasshopper who didn't prepare! They lived better than I did / do and should reap what they sow (or didn't). That's why I give all my charitable help-the-poor money to my Church. I figure if they screw up who they give it to, that's on their heads and between them and God, but I'm off the hook!
Regarding this kind of "invasion of privacy" being the beginning of the end of privacy as we know it. IMO, that is a super extremist point of view and could be applied to everything government related. Government in moderation isn't bad. We just have to be careful about where that line of moderation is. In some cases, it should be extended, in others, maybe not so much. I think this whole "GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY WILL TAKE ALL YOUR PRIVACY!!" is EXACTLY like the argument I hear every month from cities that don't want to allow chickens: "If we allow chickens, then what!?!?! Pigs, sheep, goats, cows!?!? It will not stop with chickens, so we can't allow people to have them!!"
Well said, Nifty.
Quote:
I really agree with these statements above.
While I don't fully agree, I think there were some valid points:
Quote:
I don't think there is a 100% perfect answer. I deal with weighing pros and cons of situations all day long with work, and then again all day long moderating this forum!
The problem is limited resources. I'd love to see the people who are "clean" and deserve help get more at the expense of those that are addicted to drugs taking advantage of the system. From what I understand, most states have help programs for drug addicts to get clean. IMO, not getting welfare until they come clean is a win-win!
Quote:
This is a whole 'nother discussion, but you're preaching to the choir on that one! If it was a perfect world, there would be very clear and easy ways to determine who really "needed" the money and who doesn't.
I have friends who are getting support and, IMO, shouldn't be. They aquired nice things because they were living outside of their means. During "years of plenty" they ate drank and became merry, but when famine came they were like the grasshopper who didn't prepare! They lived better than I did / do and should reap what they sow (or didn't). That's why I give all my charitable help-the-poor money to my Church. I figure if they screw up who they give it to, that's on their heads and between them and God, but I'm off the hook!
Regarding this kind of "invasion of privacy" being the beginning of the end of privacy as we know it. IMO, that is a super extremist point of view and could be applied to everything government related. Government in moderation isn't bad. We just have to be careful about where that line of moderation is. In some cases, it should be extended, in others, maybe not so much. I think this whole "GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY WILL TAKE ALL YOUR PRIVACY!!" is EXACTLY like the argument I hear every month from cities that don't want to allow chickens: "If we allow chickens, then what!?!?! Pigs, sheep, goats, cows!?!? It will not stop with chickens, so we can't allow people to have them!!"
Well said, Nifty.
- Apr 4, 2010
- 4,174
- 13
- 251
Quote:
Really, what about all the children in foster care? You might want to rethink this, I bet at least 75% are welfare recipients. All because of drugs they get free money, food, and medical. Then tax payers also have to pay for their children to be in foster care also.
Really, what about all the children in foster care? You might want to rethink this, I bet at least 75% are welfare recipients. All because of drugs they get free money, food, and medical. Then tax payers also have to pay for their children to be in foster care also.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Which rooster to keep for sex linked offspring.
- Started by Vkamiko
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
Question of the Day - Thursday, August 14th, 2025- Started by casportpony
- Replies: 75
-
-
-
-
