In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

drug testing for welfare recipiants

tomahawktomahawk Member Posts: 11,826
edited May 2009 in General Discussion
house bill #30 is passed the house of representatives in Missouri. now on to the senate[;)][:D]
«1

Comments

  • FrancFFrancF Member Posts: 35,278 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Its about frigging time![^] is this for MO.? or nation wide?
  • savage170savage170 Member Posts: 37,504 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    bleening a right.
  • tomahawktomahawk Member Posts: 11,826
    edited November -1
    just for missouri
  • dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    I'm all for it. If they can't afford to feed themselves, they had better not be buying drugs![V]
  • Nurse DebbieNurse Debbie Member Posts: 61 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The ACLU will never let this happen.
  • FrancFFrancF Member Posts: 35,278 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This one I would like to see go nation wide. Especially in CA!
  • trc313trc313 Member Posts: 3,475
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Nurse Debbie
    The ACLU will never let this happen.


    +1
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Nurse Debbie
    The ACLU will never let this happen.
    why not? Many jobs require drug testing, including almost every government job. In essence by signing up for a government check you shouldn't be held to less of a standard than a person who is a government employee
  • tomahawktomahawk Member Posts: 11,826
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Nurse Debbie
    The ACLU will never let this happen.



    in Mo.they will...we are drug tested weekly to be able to work..i have seen no aclu doing anything about it
  • FrancFFrancF Member Posts: 35,278 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Nurse Debbie
    The ACLU will never let this happen.


    You do make a good point, The ACLU would tie up the courts. But would be good for the millions of known drug offenders that suck off the system.
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quite frankly I do not believe in any form of welfare, but if they insist on it anyway this is a good first step. The second should be tracking their prescription drug purchases from multiple doctors that they then take and sell on the street to supplement their income. Third they should have to sign all their possessions over to the government the same way they do to old people who wind up having to go into a home on medicaid. Pretty disgusting when they treat beggars better than our elderly [xx(]
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    But they have a right to have drugs ! The constitution doesn't say anything about drugs ! They aren't hurting anyone ! No more state-ism !

    [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
    if they purchase them on their own more power to them. If you are being supported by people who really have no desire to support you you shouldn't be allowed to use those funds to fuel a drug addiction. Quite frankly they should never see money from a hand ot anyway. The most they should be able to do is go to a food bank and pick up essentials
  • txlawdogtxlawdog Member Posts: 10,039 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm tired of paying taxes for bunchs of folks to get free money for not doing a thing for it.

    While people who have paid into the systems for years and won't get what they have paid in.

    We have too many folks on the government teet!

    Lets just cut it all off and start over instead of drug testing anyone. We would have to pay for that too!
  • dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    And where do you get the authority to specify what free men will do ?


    They are not free if they are depending on the state for support.
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    But they have a right to have drugs ! The constitution doesn't say anything about drugs ! They aren't hurting anyone ! No more state-ism !

    [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
    if they purchase them on their own more power to them. If you are being supported by people who really have no desire to support you you shouldn't be allowed to use those funds to fuel a drug addiction. Quite frankly they should never see money from a hand ot anyway. The most they should be able to do is go to a food bank and pick up essentials


    And where do you get the authority to specify what free men will do ?
    free men do not require the theft of another mans property to subside on. These people are merely serfs, or at best committed to indentured servitude. Free men provide for themselves, and their families without relying on the redistribution of stolen property. If you get a loan from a bank you are required to meet their demands as listed in the contract. If you get a job with an employer you are required to adhere to their rules and regulations as they see fit.
  • JorgeJorge Member Posts: 10,656 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    What ya think?

    Is it really gonna happen?

    [?]
  • TooBigTooBig Member Posts: 28,559 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It won't happen we tried it in Kansas and a conservative told me it would hurt the kids worse than the guilty one. If no money the kids are the ones that suffer and to expensive to put them in child protection service. I agree with the law but I really don't think it will float. [xx(][:(][V][:(!] I believe they should be put on notice if caught they have to report to therapy and if they don't get clean they are off the system and the kids put in protective service.
  • tomahawktomahawk Member Posts: 11,826
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Polite Psycho
    What ya think?

    Is it really gonna happen?

    [?]


    vote was 109 to 45 in the house...i think it will happen in Missouri senate
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by fshfndr
    It won't happen we tried it in Kansas and a conservative told me it would hurt the kids worse than the guilty one. If no money the kids are the ones that suffer and to expensive to put them in child protection service. I agree with the law but I really don't think it will float. [xx(][:(][V][:(!] I believe they should be put on notice if caught they have to report to therapy and if they don't get clean they are off the system and the kids put in protective service.
    No offense, but I only care about my children. It is up to each parent to care about their children, and if they do not it is on them. I do not know what is worse, letting kids grow up as hoodlums in that environment, or taking them away. Not my kids to pay child support for, sorry.
  • JorgeJorge Member Posts: 10,656 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Would that be precedent?

    [?]
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Polite Psycho
    Would that be precedent?

    [?]


    I am not aware of any other state that requires this
  • JorgeJorge Member Posts: 10,656 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Please keep us updated, Tomahawk.
  • Queen of SwordsQueen of Swords Member Posts: 14,355
    edited November -1
    The ACLU will not let it happen based on the argument that you can choose or not choose to be in a job that requires drug testing, but no one, allegedly, chooses to be "disabled," nor "underprivileged."
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    But they have a right to have drugs ! The constitution doesn't say anything about drugs ! They aren't hurting anyone ! No more state-ism !

    [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
    if they purchase them on their own more power to them. If you are being supported by people who really have no desire to support you you shouldn't be allowed to use those funds to fuel a drug addiction. Quite frankly they should never see money from a hand ot anyway. The most they should be able to do is go to a food bank and pick up essentials


    And where do you get the authority to specify what free men will do ?
    free men do not require the theft of another mans property to subside on. These people are merely serfs, or at best committed to indentured servitude. Free men provide for themselves, and their families without relying on the redistribution of stolen property. If you get a loan from a bank you are required to meet their demands as listed in the contract. If you get a job with an employer you are required to adhere to their rules and regulations as they see fit.


    Acts 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

    28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
    this means what? Quit trying to deflect from what we are discussing. Religion has nothing to do with this.
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
    The ACLU will not let it happen based on the argument that you can choose or not choose to be in a job that requires drug testing, but no one, allegedly, chooses to be "disabled," nor "underprivileged."
    you can choose, or not choose to be on public assistance. There are many "underprivileged" who are not on public assistance. There are also many people who are disabled who are not on assistance
  • Queen of SwordsQueen of Swords Member Posts: 14,355
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
    The ACLU will not let it happen based on the argument that you can choose or not choose to be in a job that requires drug testing, but no one, allegedly, chooses to be "disabled," nor "underprivileged."
    you can choose, or not choose to be on public assistance. There are many "underprivileged" who are not on public assistance. There are also many people who are disabled who are not on assistance


    Uh, yea.

    Let's wait and see how it plays out.

    Preaching to the choir, sir.

    Two scenarioes for you, my friend.


    #1.) I ask the twenty something gal, "Why don't you have a job?"

    She says, "I have a mental health conditions. I don't get along with people."

    I say, "So, you're a *? Since when is this a detrment to career advancement? You need to talk to my boss,..."

    #2) Able bodied-looking young man..

    "So, why aren't you in school?"

    Him: "Dropped out..."

    Me: "So, why don't you have a job?"

    Him: "I have a disability.."

    Me: "Well, you look pretty able-bodied to me.."

    Him: "I have ACID REFLUX...."

    Me: "Oh, so you have a tummy ache..."
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 15,576 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by Nurse Debbie
    The ACLU will never let this happen.
    why not? Many jobs require drug testing, including almost every government job. In essence by signing up for a government check you shouldn't be held to less of a standard than a person who is a government employee

    Because they vote for democats. Thats what the aclu is all about exploiting the ignorant and makeing them think the left is on the same side.. Thats why obama got elected, stupid people. thats why most people get elected.

    The more drug addicted ignorant people there are the more people that vote democrat.
  • dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by fshfndr
    It won't happen we tried it in Kansas and a conservative told me it would hurt the kids worse than the guilty one. If no money the kids are the ones that suffer and to expensive to put them in child protection service. I agree with the law but I really don't think it will float. [xx(][:(][V][:(!] I believe they should be put on notice if caught they have to report to therapy and if they don't get clean they are off the system and the kids put in protective service.


    Children of adicts should be wards of the state anyway. There parents obviously don't care about them or they would get sober.
  • retroxler58retroxler58 Member Posts: 32,693 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by Nurse Debbie
    The ACLU will never let this happen.
    why not? Many jobs require drug testing, including almost every government job. In essence by signing up for a government check you shouldn't be held to less of a standard than a person who is a government employee

    AMEN.
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by Nurse Debbie
    The ACLU will never let this happen.
    why not? Many jobs require drug testing, including almost every government job. In essence by signing up for a government check you shouldn't be held to less of a standard than a person who is a government employee

    Because they vote for democats. Thats what the aclu is all about exploiting the ignorant and makeing them think the left is on the same side.. Thats why obama got elected, stupid people. thats why most people get elected.

    The more drug addicted ignorant people there are the more people that vote democrat.
    but the majority of drug addicts are felons. Felons cannot vote, right? lol
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 15,576 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dheffley
    quote:Originally posted by fshfndr
    It won't happen we tried it in Kansas and a conservative told me it would hurt the kids worse than the guilty one. If no money the kids are the ones that suffer and to expensive to put them in child protection service. I agree with the law but I really don't think it will float. [xx(][:(][V][:(!] I believe they should be put on notice if caught they have to report to therapy and if they don't get clean they are off the system and the kids put in protective service.


    Children of adicts should be wards of the state anyway. There parents obviously don't care about them or they would get sober.

    Yeah but no self respecting politician wants to do something that will better the population as a whole.. There is much more important things to spend all of our tax dollars on, like anything thats stupid, or wasteful, when compared to one human life.
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 15,576 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by Nurse Debbie
    The ACLU will never let this happen.
    why not? Many jobs require drug testing, including almost every government job. In essence by signing up for a government check you shouldn't be held to less of a standard than a person who is a government employee

    Because they vote for democats. Thats what the aclu is all about exploiting the ignorant and makeing them think the left is on the same side.. Thats why obama got elected, stupid people. thats why most people get elected.

    The more drug addicted ignorant people there are the more people that vote democrat.
    but the majority of drug addicts are felons. Felons cannot vote, right? lol

    Not even half..[:D]
  • redneckandyredneckandy Member Posts: 9,705 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    As a fellow MO resident I hope it passes and the rest of the states follow with a similar law.
  • screwobamascrewobama Member Posts: 625
    edited November -1
    As a resident of MO. I hope this does pass and other states start the same thing. Just think how much money states like CA, NY, MI. and the like would save. A lot of states have huge budget deficits and this law would allow them to help ease the deficit while not lowering taxes because liberal states love tax money. Liberals, often wrong but never in doubt![:D]
  • JorgeJorge Member Posts: 10,656 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    For y'alls perusal, this is the ACLU's summary on the drug testing for welfare recipients issue:

    ACLU Position/Summary
    The ACLU believes that suspicionless mandatory drug testing is discriminatory, an invasion of privacy and a waste of state funds. Welfare recipients' constitutional rights are no less sacred than the rights of any recipients of state assistance including those of corporate subsidies. And the Michigan welfare policy denies benefits to the neediest children. This policy sends the message to welfare recipients that they are criminals solely because of their socioeconomic level. As a defender of civil liberties, the ACLU believes that all people, rich and poor, are entitled to the same privacy rights. As Kary Moss, the Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan, explains, ""No one should have to choose between their constitutional rights and providing for their families."" The ACLU applauds the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for recognizing the unconstitutional discrimination inherent in the Michigan policy. Emphasizing the important precedent this recent decision sets, Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project, said, ""This ruling should send a message to the rest of the nation that drug testing programs like these are neither an appropriate or effective use of a state's limited resources.""

    http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/10757res20030415.html

    [:(!]

    Boo hoo hoo!
  • grumpygygrumpygy Member Posts: 48,464 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Make a bet their fat too[:o)]
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:"No one should have to choose between their constitutional rights and providing for their families.""
    well see, we agree. Now go provide for your family and quit telling the rest of us that we have to
  • M1GarandloverM1Garandlover Member Posts: 2,676 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have been saying this for years. Should be mandatory nationwide
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dnelson457
    Make a bet their fat too[:o)]
    lol..........here we go again [}:)]
Sign In or Register to comment.