Pee Test

[fossten]

From an unknown author:

The Pee 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 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?

 

[pektel]

That is the BEST idea I've heard in a long time. I'm going to propose this to my local, county, and state government representatives.

 

[MAC1]

That is the BEST idea I've heard in a long time. I'm going to propose this to my local, county, and state government representatives.

How about asking your state representatives if they would be willing to submit to a pee test.

I agree with the idea, however, I would imagine that a substantial percentage of public assistance applicants living in inner cities would be turned away due to illegal substance use. Even though public assistance is not a right you could be certain that enacting a law mandating a pee test would be challenged on constitutional grounds, particularly as a violation of the 14th Amendment and/or state constitution. Such a law would be deemed unconscionable because despite illegal substance use children of users still need food, shelter and clothing bought for with public assistance. So it's a catch-22 because while we want to weed out those who abuse public assistance we don't want starving and/or abused children. So, with such legislation there would have to be some way to deal with the consequences of denying public assistance in general, but particularly to those with children. Moreover, another problem is that denying public assistance would likely lead to an upswing in crime and other associated problems. So, it sounds good on the surface but in retrospect it would not be a good idea unless there is also a way to deal with the consequences.

 

[formerknown]

How about asking your state representatives if they would be willing to submit to a pee test.

HA! You beat me to it...

 

[daves2000ls]

How about asking your state representatives if they would be willing to submit to a pee test.

I agree with the idea, however, I would imagine that a substantial percentage of public assistance applicants living in inner cities would be turned away due to illegal substance use. Even though public assistance is not a right you could be certain that enacting a law mandating a pee test would be challenged on constitutional grounds, particularly as a violation of the 14th Amendment and/or state constitution. Such a law would be deemed unconscionable because despite illegal substance use children of users still need food, shelter and clothing bought for with public assistance. So it's a catch-22 because while we want to weed out those who abuse public assistance we don't want starving and/or abused children. So, with such legislation there would have to be some way to deal with the consequences of denying public assistance in general, but particularly to those with children. Moreover, another problem is that denying public assistance would likely lead to an upswing in crime and other associated problems. So, it sounds good on the surface but in retrospect it would not be a good idea unless there is also a way to deal with the consequences.

How would it be a violation of their 14th amendment rights? Wouldn't the 4th be more applicable?