The Pee Test
 

I wish I could take credit for the following, but I can't. Author unknown:

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 they see fit. In order to get that paycheck.. I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. 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 sit on their ass. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Right on. So damn obvious, why has this not been implemented anywhere? It sounds like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me.

Amen!

Although it seems like a good idea, the cost would be enormous. Can you imagine all the records to keep, samples to process, yikes!

Man, that is spot on. It may offend or even demean some people who are required to take a piss test to recieve the govt. check. We can't have that. I know that I'm deeply offended by having to submit a sample.
In the above paragraph sentence one is serious, two is sarcasm and three is the truth.

It would pay for itself in days.

It would violate their civil rights though, or that is what would be argued

Think of all the postage saved!

It can be the first step in qualifying for health care coverage / financial aid, don't pass the pee test, don't get any financial support. Gotta do something to qualify.

Screw the civil rights issue, that's just a smoke screen.

Not at all, the dropout rate would skyrocket and they would leave the program.

Thats the good news. Bad news is that they would then probably turn to crime to support themselves, so our taxes would get even higher due to paying to keep these deadbeats in prison.

If on Welfare these restrictions should be added:

- Cannot relieve lottery winnings
- Alcohol testing
- Cannot purchase tobacco with funds (A stretch)

It shouldn't be a civil rights issue. In terms of search and seizure, conducting a search of an entire group's urine is generally considered legal, in the same way that conducting a search of an entire line of people at the airport's bags is generally considered legal.

Does anyone have actual numbers for how expensive urinalysis is? I instinctively agree with the speculation that a whiz-quiz would save money overall, but I'd be curious to see real numbers.

When I worked at a tiny convenience store in college, I regularly saw losers come in with food stamps and buy a piece of Bazooka bubble gum or a pretzel or whatever with food stamps to get change to buy smokes or booze. One time a bum with a big carry out bag from McD's, steam still coming out of it, came up and bought a bunch of such little things and total came out to something like $3.05. He handed me a $5 food stamp. So I took a nickel out of the penny dish and handed him two $1 food stamps back. He got really bent out of shape, started yelling, and cursing. I said, "What's the problem? I'm giving you a nickel?" He said, "I don't take freebies from no one." I said, "What do you call these?" as I held up his food stamps. Then he demanded to speak to my boss. I gave him my boss's name and number, said "tell him Richard sent you" and "get the f&ck out of my store already". A few other customers broke into applause and I never heard from the bum again.

I'd be willing to set up a lab and take over the work for a percentage of the money the state saves.

Jesus, I can't believe this isn't done already. If someone on here won't seriously push for legislation on this, I'll do it myself. Hell, I might even run for City Council on that platform plus requiring proof of legal right to work in the U.S. before someone can get a job or apartment. . . Shoot. I may seriously consider this.

Civil rights issues would be sticky...and I agree with Joe, if the aid is essential and they can't get it, they'll find a way.

I would.

I just peed in a bottle this morning as part of the Navy's random program.

Frankly, as a pilot, I'm glad to know that there is a method to help catch those working on my aircraft that are using illegal drugs.

I think like Joe, there is a law of unintended consequences we are ignoring.

Any bill suggesting this would die in committee in the Oregon legislature. Hey, how about pee testing the politicians?

This might be a little radical for you all, but how about this:

We remove all the nonsensical draconian drug laws, make it so no one has to prove they weren't smoking a little weed over the weekend, and save money on the ridiculous "war on drugs."

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!

Not a bad idea at all.

And yet it is acceptable to foist those very costs off onto the private sector by making it a requirement for employment?

I think most of these guys are right. It would pay for itself overnight. Yes, we may see an increase in crime because many welfare recipients can't think of another way to make a living. I would rather deal with that than this current situation.

We simply get tougher on that as well. "Three strikes you're out" turns into "three strikes you're dead". We free up prison space by eliminating our draconian drug laws. We build prisons with the money saved on the welfare programs. We continue to liberalize CCW and self-defense laws so the good people of this country can shoot the bad ones. It would be great.

U can't save everyone. The No Child Left Behind is such a crock. Not everyone is college material.

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.

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.