Pee in a cup to get unimployment?

[Demwit]

(CNN) -- If Craig Blair gets his way, anyone filing for unemployment or food stamps must show that they are drug-free. He's a state lawmaker in West Virginia who has introduced a bill to require random drug testing for benefits and lays out his case on a Web site called notwithmytaxdollars.com.
Craig Blair says unemployment, designed to get people back to work, is impossible if the recipient uses drugs.

Craig Blair says unemployment, designed to get people back to work, is impossible if the recipient uses drugs.

Blair and his supporters say drug use is rampant and taxpayers are growing alarmed with how the government is spending their money.

"The message that we're trying to send is, first of all, we need to respect taxpayers and how their monies are spent," the Republican said. "And drug addiction is in epidemic proportions, and not only in West Virginia but throughout the United States."

His bill would require random drug testing for any government assistance: welfare, jobless benefits or food stamps.

Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/jobless.benefits/index.html

 

[USFREEDOM911]

(CNN) -- If Craig Blair gets his way, anyone filing for unemployment or food stamps must show that they are drug-free. He's a state lawmaker in West Virginia who has introduced a bill to require random drug testing for benefits and lays out his case on a Web site called notwithmytaxdollars.com.
Craig Blair says unemployment, designed to get people back to work, is impossible if the recipient uses drugs.

Craig Blair says unemployment, designed to get people back to work, is impossible if the recipient uses drugs.

Blair and his supporters say drug use is rampant and taxpayers are growing alarmed with how the government is spending their money.

"The message that we're trying to send is, first of all, we need to respect taxpayers and how their monies are spent," the Republican said. "And drug addiction is in epidemic proportions, and not only in West Virginia but throughout the United States."

His bill would require random drug testing for any government assistance: welfare, jobless benefits or food stamps.

Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/jobless.benefits/index.html

Sounds good to me.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Sounds good to me.

How do you even show your face around here after embarrassing yourself in that thread about poll accuracy the way you did?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

How do you even show your face around here after embarrassing yourself in that thread about poll accuracy the way you did?

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, now you've gone and hurt my feelings.

OH-WOE IS ME, WOE IS ME.

 

[ib1yysguy]

I see. No sense of shame.

 

[Cancel5]

First we test Congress, then the food stamp recipients!

 

[ib1yysguy]

Test people before they can vote. Test them for IQ I mean. Anyone with an IQ lower then 100 shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the voting booth or allowed to speak freely.

 

[tinfoil]

Test people before they can vote. Test them for IQ I mean. Anyone with an IQ lower then 100 shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the voting booth or allowed to speak freely.

what a stupid thing to say. You obviously don't know what an intelligence quotient even is.

 

[ib1yysguy]

what a stupid thing to say. You obviously don't know what an intelligence quotient even is.

OMG YOU KNOW WHAT THE ACRONYM STANDS FOR. UR SO SMRT

 

[Minister of Truth]

IQ Testing has been slammed for being culturally biased by the socialogical community, but my guess is that Stirfry is talking about some other flaw...

 

[ib1yysguy]

IQ Testing has been slammed for being culturally biased by the socialogical community, but my guess is that Stirfry is talking about some other flaw...

I'd be willing to consider an alternative method for determining if someone is retarded. For instance, USFREEDOM is clearly a retard. He should not be allowed to vote.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Well done, it didn't take you long to work that out.

I'd be willing to consider an alternative method for determining if someone is retarded. For instance, USFREEDOM is clearly a retard. He should not be allowed to vote.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Well done, it didn't take you long to work that out.

That's it timmie.

Just wait until he finds out about your "any ole port in a storm" agenda.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Food stamps are for buying food. Unemployment is for people who payed insurance taxes while having a job, and then they may collect if they lose their job until they get another one.

While we certainly don't want people to use their UI money to buy drugs, I do believe the more relevant concern for both the beneficiary and the government in about 99% of cases would be whether that person will be able to get another job.

Over ten percent of the country turned to food stamps in the midst of the economic crisis. There's no particular epidemic of junkies as this legislator suggests, let alone one of addicts abusing these two public programs. It's false outrage to pad his resume.

Also, the notion that the state will be able to impartially conduct a random drug testing program is laughable. They have never been random in their drug enforcement, and this is just another program that sounds good at first glance but has very negative consequences for people who need government services with no significant benefit to the taxpayer.

It won't take that many people off the rolls of those programs. And if they do, they will have to deal with the consequences of people who have no access to assistance. it will also cost money to enforce.

Starting new government ventures and bureaucracies always costs more in the long run than just paying people to do something for themselves. People generally buy what they need, or at least what they want. Government usually buys what we neither need nor want.

This kind of nonsense is also seen in the laws that prevent people with previous drug convictions from receiving access to housing programs or college grants.

Too often we throw money into programs that destroy opportunity, rather than investing in those things that create opportunity. Getting tough on non-violent drug offenders has always been politically fashionable, but in practice it sticks the taxpayers with the much larger bill of contending with a growing underclass.

 

[WinterBorn]

I think its time to legalize marijuana. That said, the measure to test those who receive government aid is not outrageous.

The outcry that the companies that received bailout money were subject to strict government oversight is basically the same thing.

If the tax payers are footing the bill, its not out of line to make sure the recipients are drug free. There are laws prohibiting convicted felons from receiving public assistance.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

IQ Testing has been slammed for being culturally biased by the socialogical community, but my guess is that Stirfry is talking about some other flaw...

That's just what people with Lowaicue's say.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

If the tax payers are footing the bill, its not out of line to make sure the recipients are drug free.

This creates a presumption of guilt against anyone who needs access to a public program. Do you want to subject yourself to that kind of scrutiny from your government just because you lost your job and want your UI money back?

If getting food stamps (for food) or UI (your money being returned upon need) requires this, why shouldn't the 70% of Americans who receive tax rebates do the same thing? This is usually someone else's money, and if not, a portion of their own money that was withheld and borrowed by the government.

Also, if we're willing to pay a such large sum of money to keep a drug offender off the street in prison (which is another issue of cost that should be debated), why after he has served his time are we not also willing to give him access to housing or educational programs to keep him off the street and potentially reintegrate him into the job force?

We can make all sorts of holier-than-thou platitudes about how someone has their one chance and doesn't deserve it after committing a crime, but at the end of the day, only we the taxpayer and citizen pay the price when they end up being our assailant in recidivism.

 

[Lowaicue]

That's just what people with Lowaicue's say.

Your'e a laugh a minute, ain't you? Do you have a team of writers?
It looks to me as if you are simply defending your own right to vote!

 

[DamnYankee]

(CNN) -- If Craig Blair gets his way, anyone filing for unemployment or food stamps must show that they are drug-free....
Craig Blair says unemployment, designed to get people back to work, is impossible if the recipient uses drugs....

Good bill.

 

[Good Luck]

This creates a presumption of guilt against anyone who needs access to a public program. Do you want to subject yourself to that kind of scrutiny from your government just because you lost your job and want your UI money back?

If getting food stamps (for food) or UI (your money being returned upon need) requires this, why shouldn't the 70% of Americans who receive tax rebates do the same thing? This is usually someone else's money, and if not, a portion of their own money that was withheld and borrowed by the government.

Also, if we're willing to pay a such large sum of money to keep a drug offender off the street in prison (which is another issue of cost that should be debated), why after he has served his time are we not also willing to give him access to housing or educational programs to keep him off the street and potentially reintegrate him into the job force?

We can make all sorts of holier-than-thou platitudes about how someone has their one chance and doesn't deserve it after committing a crime, but at the end of the day, only we the taxpayer and citizen pay the price when they end up being our assailant in recidivism.

There is a requirement placed on UI benefits that one must be able to prove they are actively seeking employment. Being drug free is not an unreasonable part of that proof. You can't be out actively looking for work if you're wacked out on drugs. Going through the motions of looking for work (ie: being wacked out on drugs, or even hung over from the night before, while turning in applications or interviewing) does not meet the actively seeking employment requirement.