Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gee, if you think it's fair for welfare recipients to have other people pay to finance their drug habit, I just might have a suggestion for you...You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.
People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.
Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.
Have their dope dealers come to YOUR HOUSE OR JOB to collect for their drugs...
And if you think a urine-trouble test conclusively shows that (a) they paid for whatever substance shows up and (b) that they paid for it with assistance money, I just might have a suggestion for you --- take a logic class.
The compelling interest for drug testing welfare applicants is to ensure that they aren't gaming the system by letting the government subsidize their drug habit.
Looks like you need the same class.
Money is fungible. There's some logic for you.
Another opinionated load..I ran a company for 30 years and never drug tested cause I believe that a worker can do their job, there is no need to harass them..How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.
Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.
Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.
And this is based on --- what? An orifice that can be tested with a proctoscope?
The fast food industry has the most drug abusers in employment. You may look it up if you like. It's a well known fact. It is also the reason fast food doesn't drug test. Oh they make their employees sign a promise to take a drug test if called upon, but, they don't take drug tests. I know quite a few people who have worked in fast food for 10+ years and have never been called to take a drug test.
Awesome thinking!
Let's test otherwise law abiding citizens who need some help paying bills and feeding their kids...so we can see if they smoked a joint last week. . If so....we can deny them the few hundred bucks of assistance they get. Then, they can resort to a criminal act to pay those bills. We can catch them and put them in jail....for 30k per year......and then pay to feed the kids some other way.
It's brilliant conservative thinking.
The state has a compelling interest to prevent drug users from raising children. You disagree?
Why not drunks also?
I do believe construction has drug use also, that rivals if not surpasses rest. workers...
Gee, if you think it's fair for welfare recipients to have other people pay to finance their drug habit, I just might have a suggestion for you...You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.
People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.
Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.
Have their dope dealers come to YOUR HOUSE OR JOB to collect for their drugs...
And if you think a urine-trouble test conclusively shows that (a) they paid for whatever substance shows up and (b) that they paid for it with assistance money, I just might have a suggestion for you --- take a logic class.
The compelling interest for drug testing welfare applicants is to ensure that they aren't gaming the system by letting the government subsidize their drug habit.
Looks like you need the same class.
Money is fungible. There's some logic for you.
That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.
Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.
Reread until it sinks in.
Another opinionated load..I ran a company for 30 years and never drug tested cause I believe that a worker can do their job, there is no need to harass them..How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.
Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.
Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.
And this is based on --- what? An orifice that can be tested with a proctoscope?
The fast food industry has the most drug abusers in employment. You may look it up if you like. It's a well known fact. It is also the reason fast food doesn't drug test. Oh they make their employees sign a promise to take a drug test if called upon, but, they don't take drug tests. I know quite a few people who have worked in fast food for 10+ years and have never been called to take a drug test.
Awesome thinking!
Let's test otherwise law abiding citizens who need some help paying bills and feeding their kids...so we can see if they smoked a joint last week. . If so....we can deny them the few hundred bucks of assistance they get. Then, they can resort to a criminal act to pay those bills. We can catch them and put them in jail....for 30k per year......and then pay to feed the kids some other way.
It's brilliant conservative thinking.
The state has a compelling interest to prevent drug users from raising children. You disagree?
Why not drunks also?
I do believe construction has drug use also, that rivals if not surpasses rest. workers...
Gee, if you think it's fair for welfare recipients to have other people pay to finance their drug habit, I just might have a suggestion for you...You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.
People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.
Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.
Have their dope dealers come to YOUR HOUSE OR JOB to collect for their drugs...
And if you think a urine-trouble test conclusively shows that (a) they paid for whatever substance shows up and (b) that they paid for it with assistance money, I just might have a suggestion for you --- take a logic class.
The compelling interest for drug testing welfare applicants is to ensure that they aren't gaming the system by letting the government subsidize their drug habit.
Looks like you need the same class.
Money is fungible. There's some logic for you.
That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.
Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.
Reread until it sinks in.
If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.
Nope, just like when hiring, they are too buzy looking at your Facebook, to spy into your personal life....Another opinionated load..I ran a company for 30 years and never drug tested cause I believe that a worker can do their job, there is no need to harass them..Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.
Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.
And this is based on --- what? An orifice that can be tested with a proctoscope?
The fast food industry has the most drug abusers in employment. You may look it up if you like. It's a well known fact. It is also the reason fast food doesn't drug test. Oh they make their employees sign a promise to take a drug test if called upon, but, they don't take drug tests. I know quite a few people who have worked in fast food for 10+ years and have never been called to take a drug test.
Awesome thinking!
Let's test otherwise law abiding citizens who need some help paying bills and feeding their kids...so we can see if they smoked a joint last week. . If so....we can deny them the few hundred bucks of assistance they get. Then, they can resort to a criminal act to pay those bills. We can catch them and put them in jail....for 30k per year......and then pay to feed the kids some other way.
It's brilliant conservative thinking.
The state has a compelling interest to prevent drug users from raising children. You disagree?
Why not drunks also?
I do believe construction has drug use also, that rivals if not surpasses rest. workers...
Indeed, if any of these fascistic "workplace screening" song and dances were genuinely about safety, they'd be testing for actual results -- dexterity in motor skills, which could be easily affected by.... lack of sleep.... illness...... preoccupation with personal issues.... residual (or current) effects of alcohol, reactions to (legal) medications, etc.
But since that would directly address actual safety issues, that clearly isn't the objective.
Gee, if you think it's fair for welfare recipients to have other people pay to finance their drug habit, I just might have a suggestion for you...
Have their dope dealers come to YOUR HOUSE OR JOB to collect for their drugs...
And if you think a urine-trouble test conclusively shows that (a) they paid for whatever substance shows up and (b) that they paid for it with assistance money, I just might have a suggestion for you --- take a logic class.
The compelling interest for drug testing welfare applicants is to ensure that they aren't gaming the system by letting the government subsidize their drug habit.
Looks like you need the same class.
Money is fungible. There's some logic for you.
That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.
Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.
Reread until it sinks in.
If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.
Based on --------- what?
Do you enjoy the law of the ACA?And if you think a urine-trouble test conclusively shows that (a) they paid for whatever substance shows up and (b) that they paid for it with assistance money, I just might have a suggestion for you --- take a logic class.
Looks like you need the same class.
Money is fungible. There's some logic for you.
That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.
Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.
Reread until it sinks in.
If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.
Based on --------- what?
policy and law
Do you enjoy the law of the ACA?Money is fungible. There's some logic for you.
That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.
Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.
Reread until it sinks in.
If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.
Based on --------- what?
policy and law
Te medical community has learned the golden value of lobbying for more drug testing to increase profits...sad thing is, drug test are easy to beat..
Gee, if you think it's fair for welfare recipients to have other people pay to finance their drug habit, I just might have a suggestion for you...
Have their dope dealers come to YOUR HOUSE OR JOB to collect for their drugs...
And if you think a urine-trouble test conclusively shows that (a) they paid for whatever substance shows up and (b) that they paid for it with assistance money, I just might have a suggestion for you --- take a logic class.
The compelling interest for drug testing welfare applicants is to ensure that they aren't gaming the system by letting the government subsidize their drug habit.
Looks like you need the same class.
Money is fungible. There's some logic for you.
That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.
Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.
Reread until it sinks in.
If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.
Based on --------- what?
If you bend over for random body fluid screens, you don't deserve a job anyway.
Another opinionated load..I ran a company for 30 years and never drug tested cause I believe that a worker can do their job, there is no need to harass them..Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.
Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.
And this is based on --- what? An orifice that can be tested with a proctoscope?
The fast food industry has the most drug abusers in employment. You may look it up if you like. It's a well known fact. It is also the reason fast food doesn't drug test. Oh they make their employees sign a promise to take a drug test if called upon, but, they don't take drug tests. I know quite a few people who have worked in fast food for 10+ years and have never been called to take a drug test.
Awesome thinking!
Let's test otherwise law abiding citizens who need some help paying bills and feeding their kids...so we can see if they smoked a joint last week. . If so....we can deny them the few hundred bucks of assistance they get. Then, they can resort to a criminal act to pay those bills. We can catch them and put them in jail....for 30k per year......and then pay to feed the kids some other way.
It's brilliant conservative thinking.
The state has a compelling interest to prevent drug users from raising children. You disagree?
Why not drunks also?
I do believe construction has drug use also, that rivals if not surpasses rest. workers...
I'll bet you were a fast food manager for 30 years.
Another opinionated load..I ran a company for 30 years and never drug tested cause I believe that a worker can do their job, there is no need to harass them..Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.
And this is based on --- what? An orifice that can be tested with a proctoscope?
The fast food industry has the most drug abusers in employment. You may look it up if you like. It's a well known fact. It is also the reason fast food doesn't drug test. Oh they make their employees sign a promise to take a drug test if called upon, but, they don't take drug tests. I know quite a few people who have worked in fast food for 10+ years and have never been called to take a drug test.
Awesome thinking!
Let's test otherwise law abiding citizens who need some help paying bills and feeding their kids...so we can see if they smoked a joint last week. . If so....we can deny them the few hundred bucks of assistance they get. Then, they can resort to a criminal act to pay those bills. We can catch them and put them in jail....for 30k per year......and then pay to feed the kids some other way.
It's brilliant conservative thinking.
The state has a compelling interest to prevent drug users from raising children. You disagree?
Why not drunks also?
I do believe construction has drug use also, that rivals if not surpasses rest. workers...
I'll bet you were a fast food manager for 30 years.
There it is. Behold the elitist.
And if you think a urine-trouble test conclusively shows that (a) they paid for whatever substance shows up and (b) that they paid for it with assistance money, I just might have a suggestion for you --- take a logic class.
Looks like you need the same class.
Money is fungible. There's some logic for you.
That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.
Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.
Reread until it sinks in.
If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.
Based on --------- what?
If you bend over for random body fluid screens, you don't deserve a job anyway.
Oh, I see you've added on to your previous comment. Well, If you got my paycheck you might change your mind.
When in the Army, I got a dwi in 1986, they were going to drug test me, but my head NCO ask me if I was hot, I replied yes, they had someone else take the test.. See what happens when your a good soldier?
And if you think a urine-trouble test conclusively shows that (a) they paid for whatever substance shows up and (b) that they paid for it with assistance money, I just might have a suggestion for you --- take a logic class.
Looks like you need the same class.
Money is fungible. There's some logic for you.
That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.
Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.
Reread until it sinks in.
If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.
Based on --------- what?
If you bend over for random body fluid screens, you don't deserve a job anyway.
Oh, I see you've added on to your previous comment. Well, If you got my paycheck you might change your mind.
Nope, only about 4 years..But I didn't like running other businesses, I wanted my own..I wanted to make the decisions and not just report them..Another opinionated load..I ran a company for 30 years and never drug tested cause I believe that a worker can do their job, there is no need to harass them..Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.
Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.
And this is based on --- what? An orifice that can be tested with a proctoscope?
The fast food industry has the most drug abusers in employment. You may look it up if you like. It's a well known fact. It is also the reason fast food doesn't drug test. Oh they make their employees sign a promise to take a drug test if called upon, but, they don't take drug tests. I know quite a few people who have worked in fast food for 10+ years and have never been called to take a drug test.
Awesome thinking!
Let's test otherwise law abiding citizens who need some help paying bills and feeding their kids...so we can see if they smoked a joint last week. . If so....we can deny them the few hundred bucks of assistance they get. Then, they can resort to a criminal act to pay those bills. We can catch them and put them in jail....for 30k per year......and then pay to feed the kids some other way.
It's brilliant conservative thinking.
The state has a compelling interest to prevent drug users from raising children. You disagree?
Why not drunks also?
I do believe construction has drug use also, that rivals if not surpasses rest. workers...
I'll bet you were a fast food manager for 30 years.
I use the VA...If not, I'd be on medicare..Do you enjoy the law of the ACA?That's kind of the point. That, and the fact that the presence of "drugs" doesn't in itself mean any money has even changed hands at all.
Nor has anyone here defined what the term "drugs" means. If it means, say, cannabis, which is not a drug but often mistermed as such --- you can grow that.
Reread until it sinks in.
If I popped hot for cannabis I would be fired tomorrow. Welfare recipients should receive the same standard.
Based on --------- what?
policy and law
Dunno, I don't get my insurance through the exchanges as you do in your fast food management job.
