I have always wondered why, people that get welfare checks or food stamps are not required to take random urine tests. I have to pass one to go earn money that goes to some of these programs. Since I am not a drinker, smoker, or drug user, these test don't bother me but it sure upsets me that there are no requirements for the people that use these programs. Granted there some people that really need these programs. Then there are the 3rd and 4th generations of families that have worked the system, never had a job but sure have alot of childern for more benefits. These are the ones that really need to be subject to random tets, at the very least 6 times per year. I sure would like to see the Walmart's and all State and Federal Agency's make this a requirement for all employee's.

"Then there are the 3rd and 4th generations of families that have worked the system, never had a job but sure have alot of childern for more benefits."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vince,

Contact the local Office of Public Assistance (Welfare Office) and inquire facts as to how benefits work under the different programs since "Welfare Reform". Your statement is a misconception dating back to the old days of welfare.

It is funny what people think of when they discuss welfare programs. I have had people insist to me that it pays for everything under the sun (including abortions, which is NOT true), and in amounts enough to retire on.

[This message has been edited by Denise Selk (edited 4/26/2007).]

I find drug testing to be an inherently invasive abuse of power. Obviously, pilots, school bus drivers, and those with jobs that relate directly to public safety should be required to prove that they are functionally able to perform the job in a safe manner. But I fail to see how drug testing Wal-Mart employees will make any of us safer. I could not possibly care any less if some guy stocks the socks in the wrong bin because he is high. After growing up in the 70's, I have had plenty of experience with most drugs, and would still prefer to work all day next to a guy that smoked a joint last night, than work next to a guy that drank a bottle of Tequila last night. That Tequila hangover makes a man much more dangerous on the job than any guy has ever been after smoking a joint the previous day. For the most part, what someone does on his time, away from the job, is his business, and not anybody elses. And testing people before they receive public assistance is just wrong. If they need help, as a society we need to help them. Obviously there will be abuses of the system, but show me any government system that has no abuses. How about we insist that those people on public assistance are within 10% of there optimum weight? Or that they have short hair, and no tattoos? That slope is starting to get pretty slippery.

Maybe we should just sterilize them and nip the problem in bud, so to speak.

I would have to agree! I have used these services in the past.... I am now doing well on my own! I would have done what they had asked of me. I think that if everyone had to pee in a cup every month before getting your check then there would be less people on these things. Inturn, save the state, give to those who really would stop using these services in the end, and make something better then what they are currently in. Last... I would vote for it one the ballet!

Vince:

Your premise is flawed. You are equating drug use with having lots of children. Now if you meant checking a woman's fertility by a urine test, then you could make your arguement. Drug use does not equal more children.

Has Bush's abuse of power since 9/11 all gone to your heads? Are you now so used to giving up your freedoms, that you are willing to keep sacraficing them to the government?

Keep The Government Off My Body!