States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients
J
poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
list also.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45669
States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients
Thursday, March 26, 2009
By Tom Breen
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.
The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the
recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could
backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making
already desperate situations worse.
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.
"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a
Republican in the West Virginia Legislature who has created a Web site --
notwithmytaxdollars.com -- that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself
advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these
days, why not these benefits?"
Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it
would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or
the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.
Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.
--
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Ray Fischer
>Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
>poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
>should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
>provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
>list also.
You nazi turds are always trying to create a bigger and more intrusive
government.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
LC
Methadone maintainance man "J" <Jvis...@live.com> talked out his ass and
wrote in message news:2mgqgp....@news.alt.net...
> Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
> poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
> should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
> provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
> list also.
Say bye-bye to your methadone fix:
"A.A. has no position on any outside issues but, ask yourself (and only
yourself) why would you want to do these other substances if your goal is to
straighten out your life p.s. I'm a former maintainance man so i'm not just
talking out my ass."
From: jdyo...@volcanomail.com (Jon Young)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery.aa
Subject: Re: methadone
Date: 12 Nov 2003 19:31:53 -0800
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.03111...@posting.google.com>
J
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:49cdd2f3$0$1604$742e...@news.sonic.net...
So you're all in favor of tax-payers funding addicts to buy their wares? You
truly are insane!
--
J Young
Jvisi...@live.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.recovery.aa/msg/8476db09ed79d094
From: Loose Cannon <lo...@mail.itd.net>
Subject: I'm still lost. was: What would you do if.....?
Date: 1996/12/13
Message-ID: <58rft9$8...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>#1/1
newsgroups: alt.recovery.aa
Again thanks for the help. However, I fear that I have not been clear
about the nature of my confusion.
Over many years, my drinking became increasingly abnormal. It got to the
point where the booze had the upper hand. Something had to happen. I
sought help. All roads led to AA.
I agreed to do 90 meetings in 90 days. I did.
Ray Fischer
>>>Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
>>>poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
>>>should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
>>>provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
>>>list also.
>>
>> You nazi turds are always trying to create a bigger and more intrusive
>> government.
>
>So you're all in favor of tax-payers funding addicts to buy their wares?
As opposed to funding you religious child molesters?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Sanders Kaufman
> J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>So you're all in favor of tax-payers funding addicts to buy their wares?
>
> As opposed to funding you religious child molesters?
I'll take the drug-dealing lefties over the child-molesting right-wingers
ANY day.
BobR
From David
THE JOB - URINE TEST
(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
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, I am required to pass a random urine
test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is
the distribution of my 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 rear end
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. . Some thing has to change in this
country -- and soon!!!!!!!
I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'...
If we can require drug tests for employees, why the hell not for those
taking tax dollars? Can't see a damn thing intrusive about that.
Matt Silberstein
<Jvis...@live.com> in <2mgqgp....@news.alt.net> wrote:
>Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
>poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
>should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
>provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
>list also.
You might want to read something about this Christ fellow some day. He
seemed to have a very different view of the world than you do.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
BobR
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:49ce9b8f$0$1667$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>So you're all in favor of tax-payers funding addicts to buy their wares?
>
> > As opposed to funding you religious child molesters?
>
> I'll take the drug-dealing lefties over the child-molesting right-wingers
> ANY day.
Shit, no damn surprise there.
Mitchell Holman
>
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:49cdd2f3$0$1604$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's
>>>too poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that
>>>person should be spending their precious resources on; especially
>>>resources provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be
>>>added to that list also.
>>
>> You nazi turds are always trying to create a bigger and more
>> intrusive government.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> So you're all in favor of tax-payers funding addicts to buy their
> wares? You truly are insane!
>
>
>
>
Start by drug testing the biggest welfare recipients
of all -
Stock brokers, AIG executives, the Board at Citigroup
and Bank of America, and Lehman Bros.
raven1
>Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
>poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
>should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
>provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
>list also.
So you want to subject all welfare recipients to drug, alcohol, and
tobacco testing? Have you priced out your plan, by any chance?
raven1
<re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
>On Mar 28, 2:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
>> >poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
>> >should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
>> >provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
>> >list also.
>>
>> You nazi turds are always trying to create a bigger and more intrusive
>> government.
>>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer
>> rfisc...@sonic.net
>
>From David
>
>
>THE JOB - URINE TEST
>
>(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
A kick in the ass would be more like it. What a fucking idiot.
>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, I am required to pass a random urine
>test with which I have no problem.
Why not? Whether or not you use illegal substances, you should be
outraged at the presumption that you are a criminal, and forced to
randomly prove your innocence to maintain your employment. That runs
contrary to ever principle on which the US was founded.
Ray Fischer
>On Mar 28, 2:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
>> >poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
>> >should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
>> >provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
>> >list also.
>>
>> You nazi turds are always trying to create a bigger and more intrusive
>> government.
>
>From David
>
>THE JOB - URINE TEST
>
>(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
It's fiction. It's whining about something that doesn't even exist
anymore. Welfare as a lifestyle is gone.
>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, I am required to pass a random urine
>test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is
>the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine
>test.
"I don't mind doing X so it's okay to force everybody else to do X."
>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?
Hell no.
> Please understand, I have no
>problem with helping people get back on their feet.
Liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
erikc
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:19:20 -0400, in alt.atheism , "J"
><Jvis...@live.com> in <2mgqgp....@news.alt.net> wrote:
>
>>Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
>>poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
>>should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
>>provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
>>list also.
>
>You might want to read something about this Christ fellow some day. He
>seemed to have a very different view of the world than you do.
>
"J" won't do that because he seems to think that he IS Christ.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
knottu2
conflict with unreasonable search . Where I work we just had a big
layoff. Strangely a week before the layoff they had a "random" drug
test. In the past they usually tested about five people, this time they
tested practically the entire shift. It took over two hours to get
everyone done. That looks like a witch hunt to me. They did not catch
anyone and to the best of my knowledge they haven't found anyone in over
a year.
Sanders Kaufman
"knottu2" <vzev...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gqon7...@news2.newsguy.com...
> One would think drug testing in the work place would be a direct conflict
> with unreasonable search . Where I work we just had a big layoff.
> Strangely a week before the layoff they had a "random" drug test. In the
> past they usually tested about five people, this time they tested
> practically the entire shift. It took over two hours to get everyone done.
> That looks like a witch hunt to me.
That, it clearly was.
The GOOD NEWS is that it backfired on them.
They thought they could save a few dollars by doing an illegal search.
Instead - they just spent a lot of money for nothing.
towelie
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:49cdd2f3$0$1604$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>> Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If
>>> someone's too poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last
>>> thing that person should be spending their precious resources on;
>>> especially resources provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and
>>> cigarettes should be added to that list also.
>>
>> You nazi turds are always trying to create a bigger and more
>> intrusive government.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> So you're all in favor of tax-payers funding addicts to buy their
> wares? You truly are insane!
You're in favor of throwing users (not just addicts) in prison ON THE
TAXPAYER'S DIME just for possessing a substance, some which are completely
natural. You're the one who is insane.
BobR
>
> - Show quoted text -
The next time you get on a bus or an airplane I hope you will remember
that stupid statement.
Sanders Kaufman
news:xLidnfk1sp58jE3U...@centurytel.net...
> J wrote:
>> So you're all in favor of tax-payers funding addicts to buy their
>> wares? You truly are insane!
>
> You're in favor of throwing users (not just addicts) in prison ON THE
> TAXPAYER'S DIME just for possessing a substance, some which are completely
> natural. You're the one who is insane.
So you think right-wingers should be allowed to carry Anthrax to use against
you?
Guv Bob
You are stupid. That is all.
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message news:0D5Al.27379$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
Firelock
> BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 28, 2:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
> >> >poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
> >> >should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
> >> >provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
> >> >list also.
>
> >> You nazi turds are always trying to create a bigger and more intrusive
> >> government.
>
> >From David
>
> >THE JOB - URINE TEST
>
> >(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
>
> It's fiction. It's whining about something that doesn't even exist
> anymore. Welfare as a lifestyle is gone.
Could you share what has led you to this conclusion? I have
personal knowledge of a number of people who have been
on welfare their entire lives and have no real prospects for
changing, I'd like to know what you've experienced that has
led you to believe such people don't exist.
--
Walt
Ray Fischer
>On Mar 29, 2:24 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 28, 2:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >> >Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
>> >> >poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
>> >> >should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
>> >> >provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
>> >> >list also.
>>
>> >> You nazi turds are always trying to create a bigger and more intrusive
>> >> government.
>>
>> >From David
>>
>> >THE JOB - URINE TEST
>>
>> >(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
>>
>> It's fiction. It's whining about something that doesn't even exist
>> anymore. Welfare as a lifestyle is gone.
>
>Could you share what has led you to this conclusion?
The fact that changes in federal law limit lifetime welfare benefits
to a total of five years.
> I have
>personal knowledge of
Not interested in your supposed "personal knowledge".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
raven1
<re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
Anyone who is visibly under the influence of some substance should, of
course, be kept from operating any kind of heavy machinery or mode of
transportation, and fired if they are on the job at the time, and/or
arrested if they are caught in the act of doing so. Fair enough?
That aside, persons are legally entitled to the presumption of
innocence, whether you like it or not, and probable cause (ie: one has
glassy eyes and reeks of alcohol at a tollbooth, a bus driver arrives
at work sweaty, twitchy, and rubbing his nose, a pilot shows tracks on
his arms,et al) is the basis upon which drug tests ought to be
administered if one wishes to uphold the Constitution. If you think
that's stupid, I suggest you bitch at James Madison and company, not
at me. Personally, I agree with Franklin that those who are willing to
sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
BobR
The key word in your statement is visibly under the influence. The
problem is some drugs and even alcahol abuse may not show visibly. A
pilot on drugs may not show any visible signs at all but be totally
incapable of making the physical and mental decisions necessary to fly
a plane.
> That aside, persons are legally entitled to the presumption of
> innocence, whether you like it or not, and probable cause (ie: one has
> glassy eyes and reeks of alcohol at a tollbooth, a bus driver arrives
> at work sweaty, twitchy, and rubbing his nose, a pilot shows tracks on
> his arms,et al) is the basis upon which drug tests ought to be
> administered if one wishes to uphold the Constitution. If you think
> that's stupid, I suggest you bitch at James Madison and company, not
> at me. Personally, I agree with Franklin that those who are willing to
> sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.- Hide quoted text -
>
I really would like to agree with you but have a problem when the
individual right puts the lives of others at risk. Same argument as
does the right to free speach allow you to yell fire in a crowded
theater. The pilot can refuse the random drug checks but in so doing
will lose his job.
towelie
You're comparing cannabis to anthrax? There goes your credibility. Even if
you compared it to a stronger drug, there's no comparison.
Gwen
> Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along?
So you want to add that monumental cost atop the cost of the dole?
raven1
<re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
Which ones? It's trivially easy for a seasoned observer to note that
someone is high on *something*, whatever that something might be. That
would invoke the probable cause to test.
>and even alcahol abuse may not show visibly.
Again, it's relatively easy for the trained eye to pick up on it. Ask
any cop who has ever worked a roadblock.
> A
>pilot on drugs may not show any visible signs at all but be totally
>incapable of making the physical and mental decisions necessary to fly
>a plane.
Possible, but unlikely. People who are drunk or high may think they're
hiding it from people who aren't, but they're generally wrong.
>> That aside, persons are legally entitled to the presumption of
>> innocence, whether you like it or not, and probable cause (ie: one has
>> glassy eyes and reeks of alcohol at a tollbooth, a bus driver arrives
>> at work sweaty, twitchy, and rubbing his nose, a pilot shows tracks on
>> his arms,et al) is the basis upon which drug tests ought to be
>> administered if one wishes to uphold the Constitution. If you think
>> that's stupid, I suggest you bitch at James Madison and company, not
>> at me. Personally, I agree with Franklin that those who are willing to
>> sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>I really would like to agree with you but have a problem when the
>individual right puts the lives of others at risk. Same argument as
>does the right to free speach allow you to yell fire in a crowded
>theater.
A very muddled comparison. No one is claiming that pilots have a right
to fly stoned, or that people have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded
theater, but at the same time, citizens have a right not to be
questioned on the way into a theater whether they're planning on
yelling "fire", and pilots are entitled to the presumption that
they're not stupid enough to fly high, both on Constitutional grounds.
"Probable cause" is the overriding Constitutional concept in both
cases.
>The pilot can refuse the random drug checks but in so doing
>will lose his job.
If he signs a contract with his employer to that effect, I have no
problem with such a thing.
Firelock
> Firelock <firelock...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 29, 2:24 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 28, 2:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >> >Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
> >> >> >poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
> >> >> >should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
> >> >> >provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
> >> >> >list also.
>
> >> >> You nazi turds are always trying to create a bigger and more intrusive
> >> >> government.
>
> >> >From David
>
> >> >THE JOB - URINE TEST
>
> >> >(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
>
> >> It's fiction. It's whining about something that doesn't even exist
> >> anymore. Welfare as a lifestyle is gone.
>
> >Could you share what has led you to this conclusion?
>
> The fact that changes in federal law limit lifetime welfare benefits
> to a total of five years.
You're missing the exceptions. There are people willing to expend
an astonishing amount of effort coming up with ways to manipulate
the system.
> > I have
> >personal knowledge of
>
> Not interested in your supposed "personal knowledge".
I'm not surprised that you're not interested in facts that might
interfere with your beliefs.
--
Walt
BobR
You don't have to be anywhere near drunk or visibly impaired to make
you a hazard flying a plane. If you were a pilot, you would be well
aware of that fact. There is a very good reason why there is ZERO
tolerance when pilots and other professionals who are intrusted with
the lives of others.
> >> That aside, persons are legally entitled to the presumption of
> >> innocence, whether you like it or not, and probable cause (ie: one has
> >> glassy eyes and reeks of alcohol at a tollbooth, a bus driver arrives
> >> at work sweaty, twitchy, and rubbing his nose, a pilot shows tracks on
> >> his arms,et al) is the basis upon which drug tests ought to be
> >> administered if one wishes to uphold the Constitution. If you think
> >> that's stupid, I suggest you bitch at James Madison and company, not
> >> at me. Personally, I agree with Franklin that those who are willing to
> >> sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >I really would like to agree with you but have a problem when the
> >individual right puts the lives of others at risk. Same argument as
> >does the right to free speach allow you to yell fire in a crowded
> >theater.
>
> A very muddled comparison. No one is claiming that pilots have a right
> to fly stoned, or that people have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded
> theater, but at the same time, citizens have a right not to be
> questioned on the way into a theater whether they're planning on
> yelling "fire", and pilots are entitled to the presumption that
> they're not stupid enough to fly high, both on Constitutional grounds.
> "Probable cause" is the overriding Constitutional concept in both
> cases.
>
That may be good enough for you, but I sure as hell don't want to get
on an airplane that might be piloted by someone who has had ANYTHING
to drink or any drugs which might impair their facilities period. The
fact is that many pilots have and do fly when impaired and more would
if they were not afraid of the random drug tests ending their career.
> >The pilot can refuse the random drug checks but in so doing
> >will lose his job.
>
> If he signs a contract with his employer to that effect, I have no
> problem with such a thing.- Hide quoted text -
>
Actually, it is not so much the employer as it is an FAA requirement.
NotMe
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:22:26 -0700 (PDT),
>The pilot can refuse the random drug checks but in so doing
>will lose his job.
If he signs a contract with his employer to that effect, I have no
problem with such a thing.
So what the same applies to folk that work at Mickey D', Sonic, the switch
board operator a the local Cinimark.
My wife's company had the same rules. These were used only if they
suspected an interference with the job performance and even then the
employee was offered paid time off for rehab.
That said ... otherwise it was a mellow bunch.
Father Haskell
> Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
> should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
> provided by the tax-payer.
What if they've returned from another country where the drugs
in question are not illegal? What if they grow their own? What
if someone handed them the joint that made them test positive,
free of charge?
Sanders Kaufman
news:gr0bt6$fu7$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> My wife's company had the same rules. These were used only if they
> suspected an interference with the job performance and even then the
> employee was offered paid time off for rehab.
That sounds like a hospital employee benefits package.
Sanders Kaufman
news:99644d6e-89f0-431b-8d50-
> You're missing the exceptions. There are people willing to expend
> an astonishing amount of effort coming up with ways to manipulate
> the system.
And since some people might try to get away with stuff - there's no point in
enforcing any law, eh?
Ray Fischer
>On Mar 30, 10:28 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Firelock <firelock...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 29, 2:24 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> BobR <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Mar 28, 2:34 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >> J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
>> >> >> >poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
>> >> >> >should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
>> >> >> >provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
>> >> >> >list also.
>>
>> >> >> You nazi turds are always trying to create a bigger and more intrusive
>> >> >> government.
>>
>> >> >From David
>>
>> >> >THE JOB - URINE TEST
>>
>> >> >(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
>>
>> >> It's fiction. It's whining about something that doesn't even exist
>> >> anymore. Welfare as a lifestyle is gone.
>>
>> >Could you share what has led you to this conclusion?
>>
>> The fact that changes in federal law limit lifetime welfare benefits
>> to a total of five years.
>
>You're missing the exceptions.
List them.
>> > I have
>> >personal knowledge of
>>
>> Not interested in your supposed "personal knowledge".
>
>I'm not surprised that you're not interested in facts
You didn't cite any facts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Firelock
> "Firelock" <firelock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
If you need to believe that's my position, why should
I interfere with your happiness?
--
Walt
Firelock
The easy ones are identity theft and collaboration with
corrupt physicians, bureacrats, social workers and other
designated gatekeepers to the system, but those "exceptions"
while omnipresent are flaws that involve breaking (or, at least,
bending) the rules of the system rather than following them.
Every state is allowed "hardship extensions" that, while Federal
guidelines recommend a 20% limit on their caseload, in practice
there is little to no enforcement. Quite simply, with a sufficient
manipulation of your social worker's sympathy, the five year limit
fades away.
>
> >> > I have
> >> >personal knowledge of
>
> >> Not interested in your supposed "personal knowledge".
>
> >I'm not surprised that you're not interested in facts
>
> You didn't cite any facts.
I have direct knowledge of people in the system that I will
believe before I'll believe your assertions. I know enough
about the system, though fortunately secondhand, to know
that your knowledge of the subject is limited to a sound bite
or two and a politician's promise that you wanted to believe.
--
Walt
Ray Fischer
Those aren't exception, moron. Those are crimes.
>Every state is allowed "hardship extensions" that,
List them.
>> >> > I have
>> >> >personal knowledge of
>>
>> >> Not interested in your supposed "personal knowledge".
>>
>> >I'm not surprised that you're not interested in facts
>>
>> You didn't cite any facts.
>
>I have direct knowledge of people in the system that I will
When you start lying and claiming the committing crimes is the same as
exceptions to the five-year limit then you lose all credibility.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Firelock
You snipped out the part of the paragraph where I
wrote exactly that. You're arguing to hear yourself
argue, Ray.
> >Every state is allowed "hardship extensions" that,
>
> List them.
I just did. It's called a "hardship extension", each state
has different guidelines for qualifying, in practice it's
a matter of convincing your case worker that you're
hopeless. You should try it sometime, it looks like the
only thing in the world you've a shot at being good at.
> >> >> > I have
> >> >> >personal knowledge of
>
> >> >> Not interested in your supposed "personal knowledge".
>
> >> >I'm not surprised that you're not interested in facts
>
> >> You didn't cite any facts.
>
> >I have direct knowledge of people in the system that I will
>
> When you start lying
Not everything that upsets your worldview is a lie, Ray.
> and claiming the committing crimes is the same as
> exceptions
Work harder on reading everything you're replying to,
instead of snipping out chunks and claiming that since
what you snipped out wasn't there it's a lie.
> to the five-year limit then you lose all credibility.
I'm not losing any sleep about what *you* consider
credible, Ray.
--
Walt
Adam A. Wanderer
news:2mgqgp....@news.alt.net...
> Why hasn't this been mandatory in every state all along? If someone's too
> poor that they need welfare, drugs should be the last thing that person
> should be spending their precious resources on; especially resources
> provided by the tax-payer. Alcohol and cigarettes should be added to that
> list also.
How about a drug test for anything and everything? If we could develop a
simple, easy, instant, reliable test for drugs, and imprison anyone and
everyone who used drugs, we could eliminate a lot of problems, including a
lot of auto accidents. Those drugs should include smoking and drinking.
What better idea whose time has come. Besides, do you want the pilot of
your airplane (copilot too) high on some drug while you fly?
jdddiah
So my question is, is that seasoned observer your boss? If so, what a
fucking hypocrite to bust you for something they obviously do if
they're "seasoned".... As well, I've personally been very stoned
around trained social workers / co-workers (yes, drug therapists are
GREAT sources for drugs!) who abstain themselves yet have been dealing
with drug addicts for a living and they were shocked when they
eventually found out. One even refused to ever speak to me again she
felt so betrayed...
>
> >and even alcahol abuse may not show visibly.
>
> Again, it's relatively easy for the trained eye to pick up on it. Ask
> any cop who has ever worked a roadblock.
Be fair and ask any drunk like me who has gotten away with it many
times in their life....
>
> > A
> >pilot on drugs may not show any visible signs at all but be totally
> >incapable of making the physical and mental decisions necessary to fly
> >a plane.
>
> Possible, but unlikely. People who are drunk or high may think they're
> hiding it from people who aren't, but they're generally wrong.
See above. I'm getting a feeling you might realize that at least 75%
of the people you know are doing drugs, and doing them around you.
That is not my opinion. That is statistic.
So are we saying 1. Income should be based on the impact of your work
on others, so 2. drug testing should then be based on pay grade and
perceived importance of ones job? For instance, a teacher, in my
theoretical system, would make far more than a pro sports athlete
simply due to the importance and scope of impact teaching offers
humanity verses large men getting balls across lines and such... And
so teachers would be drug tested and athletes not. It is currently the
reverse in case you're wondering. Doctors would still make about the
same but hedge fund operators would make less than athletes. Doc's
tested, Ivy League crooks not.
The reason I added income to the mix is because if I'm doing something
really important (Director of Health of a major NW nursing facility)
yet receiving less than $15 and hour - no shit, I run the entire
dept... $15 p/h - and can't even afford camping gear, you haven't left
me many other options than pot and beer to relax between 18-24 hour
shifts. So you would be an ass to drug test me. But if I made what I
really deserve than I would have other options and lose that excuse.
You may cry lame, but if you stopped and actually polled all the pot
heads you know (at least 75% of your friends whether you like it or
not) they will tell you I'm not too far off.
Guv Bob
"towelie" <watuzi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u6ednW_5_5bVEE_U...@centurytel.net...
Guv Bob
"Firelock" <firel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:19a9b7ad-7d79-480d...@r15g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Guv Bob
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:t903t4568ivmcb8gd...@4ax.com...
Guv Bob
--I really would like to agree with you but have a problem when the
individual right puts the lives of others at risk. Same argument as
does the right to free speach allow you to yell fire in a crowded
theater. The pilot can refuse the random drug checks but in so doing
will lose his job.
Well then, how about free stupid? You got plenty of that, Goober.
Guv Bob
"jdddiah" <david....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9ca2fe09-d96f-4bb6...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Guv Bob
Pls forgive "J". He's about 15 IQ points higher than you are.
"Father Haskell" <father...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5d962f58-9e3d-47d1...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Guv Bob
"Adam A. Wanderer" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:L-mdncDrJdpDrEjU...@earthlink.com...
towelie
> Go piss up a rope, Towelhead.
I pissed on your mother last night, GooberBob.
raven1
<broth...@YEEEEOOOOWWWbigfoot.com> wrote:
>Dear Father,
>
>Pls forgive "J". He's about 15 IQ points higher than you are.
And you're clearly about 15 years old, judging from your posts in this
thread.
<plonk>