Pass drug test to get assistance...???

SmarterthanYou said:
No, I groaned you because of your complete bullshit statement "because the only people on welfare these days are mothers with dependent children."

I know a handful of families, with MEN as the head of household, that are on public assistance. You should really stop trying to pull facts out of your ass, you only come up with shit.
Click to expand...

Come on STY you should recognize irony when you see it by now.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Untrue.
No one is forcing them to apply for the assistance; just like no one forces someone to work for a company that requires drug testing.
In both instances, the person has the ability to refuse and do something else.

And now let's add in that even if I agreed with your premise; just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it "unreasonable".
What is "unreasonable" about it?
Click to expand...

Comparing drug testing at a job (options available) with collecting (no other option) is not viable.
 
Rune said:
Comparing drug testing at a job (options available) with collecting (no other option) is not viable.
Click to expand...

I don't see why not....one is earning the money, and under random drug testing, the other is taking the money I earned and protected from taking drug tests? Something is definitely wrong with that picture...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
No, I groaned you because of your complete bullshit statement "because the only people on welfare these days are mothers with dependent children."

I know a handful of families, with MEN as the head of household, that are on public assistance. You should really stop trying to pull facts out of your ass, you only come up with shit.
Click to expand...

I don't care who you know. The fact is the majority of food stamp recepients in Florida, and most likely nationwide, are children.

Quote: According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Surveys for 2007-09,58% of families who received food stamps had children under 18 years of age. Of these families,approximately 58% were headed by single females.
 
Howey said:
I don't care who you know. The fact is the majority of food stamp recepients in Florida, and most likely nationwide, are children.

Quote: According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Surveys for 2007-09,58% of families who received food stamps had children under 18 years of age. Of these families,approximately 58% were headed by single females.
Click to expand...

and if you're going to step in to try to pwn someone, at least try to know what you're talking about so you don't look any more stupid than you already do. try reading the posts again and see what I pointed out to darla instead of 'rejecting' reality.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and if you're going to step in to try to pwn someone, at least try to know what you're talking about so you don't look any more stupid than you already do. try reading the posts again and see what I pointed out to darla instead of 'rejecting' reality.
Click to expand...

Semantics, dear. How republican of you! And yes, I know you aren' t but you share their stupid.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what did the child go without so that mommy or daddy could buy a couple of joints?
Click to expand...

Go without? The child probably benefited.

Consider, if you will, the following:

1. Smokers tend to get hungry so food will be available.
2. The parents are home with the child.
3. Smokers tend to be more relaxed so domestic violence is reduced.

I'm not a smoker but that's what I've seen.
 
apple0154 said:
Go without? The child probably benefited.

Consider, if you will, the following:

1. Smokers tend to get hungry so food will be available.
2. The parents are home with the child.
3. Smokers tend to be more relaxed so domestic violence is reduced.

I'm not a smoker but that's what I've seen.
Click to expand...

Aside from the false positives is the fact that poor people can't aford a weed habit, yet you only have to take a few hits from a joint someone else bought and lit to test dirty.
 
Rune said:
Aside from the false positives is the fact that poor people can't aford a weed habit, yet you only have to take a few hits from a joint someone else bought and lit to test dirty.
Click to expand...

Although most urine drug screens are very unlikely to miss the presence of a drug being assayed, the possibility of a false positive result does exist. This means that the test could return a positive result when the tested individual has not had any contact with an illicit substance. False positive tests are rare with an occurrence of approximately 1 - 2.5%.

For this reason, it is recommended that any and all positive screenings be followed up by a second, more selective test to confirm the result and rule out any false positives. This follow up test should be performed using a methodology that is different from that used on the initial screening test. This way the possibility of two simultaneous false positive results using two completely different methods should be quite low.

The current standard confirmatory test is gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). If the confirmation is positive, then it is a true positive test. This test increases the cost of testing, but essentially eliminates the possibility of false positive results.

http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/substanceabuse/drugtesting.cfm
Click to expand...

Today's technology the threat of false positive is virtually nil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top