View Full Version : THE JOB - URINE TEST
THE JOB - URINE TEST
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 ASS, 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 . . . Something has to change in this country -- and soon!
From craiglist
With a little money up front to get things started, this program could fund itself from the savings.
Maybe congress could set the example and subject it's members to random drug testing since they are the ones who manage those tax dollars.
Maybe congress could set the example and subject it's members to random drug testing since they are the ones who manage those tax dollars.
And after the results are in, publish who and what in the newspapers.
Roguish Lawyer
04-18-2008, 12:32
At least in theory, in most circumstances, I am opposed to both urine tests and public assistance. Public assistance is OK if we control the negative effects by limiting its availability. Like you can get X amount of assistance Y times in your life, then that's it. And do all the drugs you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else in the process.
None of this works if you don't have severe penalties for criminal conduct which are enforced effectively, plus complete freedom to hire and fire for legitimate reasons. So really I just need to be the Leviathan for a short period. Once my system is in place, I can step down and watch paradise emerge. ;)
No urine test for us, we take a Oral 6-Panel Instant Saliva Drug Test (http://www.uritoxmedicaltesting.com/saliva-6.html)
Tests for 6 Drugs:
Marijuana (THC) 12 ng/ml
Cocaine (COC) 20 ng/ml
Methamphetamine (METH) 50 ng/ml
Phencyclidine (PCP) 10 ng/ml
Amphetamine (AMP) 50 ng/ml
Morphine/Opiates (MOR) 40 ng/ml
Stay safe.
The Reaper
04-18-2008, 14:08
At least in theory, in most circumstances, I am opposed to both urine tests and public assistance. Public assistance is OK if we control the negative effects by limiting its availability. Like you can get X amount of assistance Y times in your life, then that's it. And do all the drugs you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else in the process.
None of this works if you don't have severe penalties for criminal conduct which are enforced effectively, plus complete freedom to hire and fire for legitimate reasons. So really I just need to be the Leviathan for a short period. Once my system is in place, I can step down and watch paradise emerge. ;)
I believe you.
You have my vote.
TR
At least in theory, in most circumstances, I am opposed to both urine tests and public assistance. Public assistance is OK if we control the negative effects by limiting its availability. Like you can get X amount of assistance Y times in your life, then that's it. And do all the drugs you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else in the process.
None of this works if you don't have severe penalties for criminal conduct which are enforced effectively, plus complete freedom to hire and fire for legitimate reasons. So really I just need to be the Leviathan for a short period. Once my system is in place, I can step down and watch paradise emerge. ;)
Sounds good to me too... except for the fact that public assistance is not going away. Especially not if those on it can vote to keep it coming. What if we just make that big leap and assume that public assistance isn't going away. Isn't a urine test just a way to detect crimminal conduct? Now naturally, it wouldn't make sense without severe penalties....
Sounds good to me too... except for the fact that public assistance is not going away. Especially not if those on it can vote to keep it coming. What if we just make that big leap and assume that public assistance isn't going away. Isn't a urine test just a way to detect crimminal conduct? Now naturally, it wouldn't make sense without severe penalties....
How about you can't vote if you don't have a job?
How about you can't vote if you don't have a job?
That sounds good to me too with some common sense caveats, of course.
Hell, I'm in the ARMY. An able bodied, person can't really expect a whole lot of sympathy out of me in this respect!
How about you can't vote if you don't have a job?
MT,
In some ways I agree with you, but in other ways I don't.
Say for instance the person can't work. Say due to an injury that has left them incapacitated to work.
Take for example this kid.....SSG Matt Keil.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15859
Right now, I'm sure, the only job he can do is, to get stronger. He has all his mental facilities, so that wouldn't bare him from voting, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts, that this kid will be casting a ballot come November.
My 0.02
How about you can't vote if you don't have a job?And when I retire...? Not sure I want to sign up for that...
My wife, who stays pretty busy being a mom, wouldn't be all that happy about not being eligible to vote.
That sounds good to me too with some common sense caveats, of course.
Hell, I'm in the ARMY. An able bodied, person can't really expect a whole lot of sympathy out of me in this respect!
I guess the devil IS in the details of what "common sense caveats" are applied...
I do NOT like the idea that people who are able-bodied and live off of the public, get the right to vote when they don't contribute to society in any meaningful way. Spouses don't fall into this category...
what about the idea of a veteranocracy a la Heinlein?
I do NOT like the idea that people who are able-bodied and live off of the public, get the right to vote when they don't contribute to society in any meaningful way. I don't like the idea of trustfunders voting, either...but in all honesty, I am not sure my ancestors would have been allowed to vote if the plantation owners in Eastern Virginia had their way...
Paste Eater
04-21-2008, 21:23
How about you can't vote if you don't have a job?
Hell, lets just go circa 1800 and only allow white, land owning males to vote while we're at it. Where's Soozie B A when you need her?
;););)
[/sarcasm]