I think we should take the opposite approach. Give everyone on public assistance the value of their check in heroin. If they use it, great. If they sell it that is fine too. If they O.D. so much the better.

Whoa there pecos... There are people who actually qualify for welfare and aren't just lazy and bilking the system. Why begrudge a few beers to a guy who's seriously down on his luck but a hard working and honest?!

Now paying for their illegal drug usage? Not so much.

Well, I believe we only test once for employment, not every time you get a paycheck. The costs to employers is insiginificant.

This is every week!

OK, but just a few.

Quote:

That way, the author wouldn't have to pass a piss test, those in need of welfare could keep getting it, and the money saved rounding up 14-year-olds with dime bags might just save you money on your taxes!! Win win win!

Problem is, it isn't just 14 year olds with dime bags. It's guys like I used to work with, with "birds" in the back of their "'Lac on dubs" and an AK with "Ben Frank clips" slinging weight and shooting people up. Where do you think the 14 year olds GET the dime bags? The drug business is very, very harsh..don't play it off like it isn't.

Also, from an economics standpoint, there is a lot more that goes with (il)legalizing drugs. There is actually a very good book on the subject, I'll try and dig it up. My point is, it's not quite as black and white as many make it out to be, and there is serious, real economic debate going on with regards to drug legalization.

Anyway, I don't see a problem with requiring drug testing for those receiving welfare. Maybe do it once a month or once every two months to keep costs down? Like Joe, I think the state might actually realize a net saving.

Rick, I'll go into business with you! Process piss all day? Why not...my parents work for a medical instruments company, maybe we can get a deal;);)

"The world needs ditch-diggers too." - Judge Smails

No need for more record keeping, and you can save on postage if the following is implemented:

1. A welfare person needs to get himself to a regional office.
2. He pees in a cup.
3. Urine is tested for drugs.
4. If drugs show up, no check. If the urine is clean, the welfare person gets his check.

Oh, and have the regional office conveniently located next to a work recruitment center type place.

Problem solved.
-Z

This country is so fked up trying not to offend anyone, being PC. and giving everyone their rights. ..If U try to save all you wind up saving NONE. [/B][/QUOTE]

Very true.

The urine test is going out of fashion. Around here we use a swab that goes under the tongue. Less invasive and more reliable. Cost of swab and test results is $15.00

I think Z-man and Kurt just solve the money question. Can the swab be tested on the spot?

Nope takes a week to get results. What you are thinking of is a presumptive test which would not withstand judicial scrutiny. Just have the welfare recipient show up for the test and once the results are in they get their check.

Results could be posted to the internet and then be viewed by the Welfare office to expedite the "review and approval/disapproval" process.

Well if that doesn't deserve the bunny/pancake pic I don't know what does.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e2...manp/bunny.jpg

I'm not exactly sure what means, but I'm going to guess it means what I wrote was "random" and off-topic. However, if you re-read the post I quoted, it's not quite so. The poster I quoted asserted that the War on Drugs deals with 14 year old kids and $10 bags of weed. My position is that by making that assertion, he is under-scoring the actual depth of the problem. It's not the 14 year olds with some pot that is the problem; it's the upper level people selling kilos of cocaine, heroine and other assorted narcotics, whilst protecting themselves against their competition with illegal firearms, that is the problem and the main focus of the War on Drugs.

Slow,
I think Shuie was indicating that he didn't understand your street slang...

Yo...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1175121054.jpg

Ahh..definitely feel like a moron now. Please excuse my second explanation.

For urban edification..

bird == kilogram of cocaine
Lac == Cadillac
Dub == a unit of measure based off 20. Dub-sack, "dubs" on a car...
Ben Frank clip == clip holding 100 rounds

This is the kind of **** rap music oscillates into the brains of the young and impressionable...Thankfully I missed that phase...

Anyway, back on topic now...

Will that include alcohol(gone in days), which has been shown to be a much more dangerous drug than marijuanna (resides in the system for months)?
Can we include bi-weekly testing of all government employees, including military and subcontractors, who are currently using potentially dangerous equipment?
Can there be at lease two labs doing the testing for impatiality and error correction?

I think PPOT should institute drug testing.

Why not just make welfare a work program...kind of like a new deal, instead of just giving people money make them earn it and at the same time they can, idk clean up trash on federal roads, things of that nature that the government spends so much money on every year

I nominate Jeff to collect the samples.