Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

My wife had a job way back when. She worked, they paid her. We pay our taxes & the government distributes our taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in her case, she was required to pass a random urine test (with which she had no problem).

What fries her is the distribution of her taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here are my questions:
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because she had to pass one to earn it for them?

Shouldn’t there also be an ID check agains a "no gamblers list" at casino’s?

I voted "No", but it is tempting to say "Yes".


Howzabout we give random urine tests to all members of Congress? Or every employee of every company that accepts federal dollars? I know that many (most) do, but, make it random, now. Recipients of relief are a small number when compared to employees of companies take government largesse.

Cap'n Cat wrote:I voted "No", but it is tempting to say "Yes".


Howzabout we give random urine tests to all members of Congress? Or every employee of every company that accepts federal dollars? I know that many (most) do, but, make it random, now. Recipients of relief are a small number when compared to employees of companies take government largesse.

To me Cap'n Welfare is much like the old driver's license. It's a privilege, not a right and you have some basic hoops that need to be jumped through to receive it.

The companies do not fall into that same category for me as they are supposed to be doing something productive for the largesse they are receiving so in that sense the largesse is "earned" isn't it? In that case it should be up to the company themselves if they want to do the drug tests.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:I voted "No", but it is tempting to say "Yes".


Howzabout we give random urine tests to all members of Congress? Or every employee of every company that accepts federal dollars? I know that many (most) do, but, make it random, now. Recipients of relief are a small number when compared to employees of companies take government largesse.

To me Cap'n Welfare is much like the old driver's license. It's a privilege, not a right and you have some basic hoops that need to be jumped through to receive it.

The companies do not fall into that same category for me as they are supposed to be doing something productive for the largesse they are receiving so in that sense the largesse is "earned" isn't it? In that case it should be up to the company themselves if they want to do the drug tests.

Well, Ursus, my experiences are from my 18 years in corporate America in which I witnessed much sucking at the public teat, most of which, in my humble opinion, was rather smarmy. For example, when I worked for a major cereal company in the mid 90's, they lobbied for and accepted mountains of federal and state money to fund training at a new plant in New Mexico. They even threatened to pull out of the state if they didn't get it.

My beef is that this company was a multi-multi-billion dollar operation who could afford the cost of training their people and all they were doing was holding a gun to the two levels of governments' heads. Just another example, to me, of captialistic abuse. That state and federal money could have been spent elsewhere.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: To me Cap'n Welfare is much like the old driver's license. It's a privilege, not a right and you have some basic hoops that need to be jumped through to receive it.

The companies do not fall into that same category for me as they are supposed to be doing something productive for the largesse they are receiving so in that sense the largesse is "earned" isn't it? In that case it should be up to the company themselves if they want to do the drug tests.

Well, Ursus, my experiences are from my 18 years in corporate America in which I witnessed much sucking at the public teat, most of which, in my humble opinion, was rather smarmy. For example, when I worked for a major cereal company in the mid 90's, they lobbied for and accepted mountains of federal and state money to fund training at a new plant in New Mexico. They even threatened to pull out of the state if they didn't get it.

My beef is that this company was a multi-multi-billion dollar operation who could afford the cost of training their people and all they were doing was holding a gun to the two levels of governments' heads. Just another example, to me, of captialistic abuse. That state and federal money could have been spent elsewhere.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you or questioning Cap'n just showing my reasoning on how I look at it. That is a completely separate waste of money that is not really related to the abuses put forth here and I would of course support fixing that gut shot wound as well.

These things never go anywhere and I realize they don't have to but I'm only saying how I feel about this particular issue. I mean do we look the other way on everything because there is a problem over there too?

These things are not mutually exclusive so on these matters I can agree with you, and agree with me.

I want to vote no, but that would be penalizing innocent kids for their parents sins...

I think if they cant pass a drug test than benefits should still be issued, but perhaps to a third party who will ensure the needs of the children are being met... perhaps a neighborhood church who can have church volunteers go grocery shopping with the family to ensure food stamps are being used to buy food for the home instead of being sold for cash for drugs. Of course this makes things much more difficult.

oldsloguy wrote:My wife had a job way back when. She worked, they paid her. We pay our taxes & the government distributes our taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in her case, she was required to pass a random urine test (with which she had no problem).

What fries her is the distribution of her taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here are my questions:
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because she had to pass one to earn it for them?

Shouldn’t there also be an ID check agains a "no gamblers list" at casino’s?

And for what its worth I dont think your wife should have to pass a urine test as a requirement for employment either.

UNHWildCats wrote:

oldsloguy wrote:My wife had a job way back when. She worked, they paid her. We pay our taxes & the government distributes our taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in her case, she was required to pass a random urine test (with which she had no problem).

What fries her is the distribution of her taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here are my questions:
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because she had to pass one to earn it for them?

Shouldn’t there also be an ID check agains a "no gamblers list" at casino’s?

And for what its worth I dont think your wife should have to pass a urine test as a requirement for employment either.

That's completely up to the business and what they need in an employee. You are not forced to take a job or even apply for it.

If you want to have some fun, pretend to stumble when you come out of the pisser and fling the sample in the direction of the piss testers.

"Oh, dear, I'm so sorry!

I voted "no" to both but I qualify the first vote by saying there shouldn't be welfare recipents to begin with because there should be welfare programs.

And even though I voted "no" I do not think rights or privacy would be violated by requiring welfare recipients to pass a urine test. If somebody's going to give you something but they put conditions on giving it all you have to do is decline the offer. Nobody is forcing you to do or allow anything.

Definitely need to institute drug testing on welfare recipients...

If they want the money, they need to play the game...

And Travis...apparently you don't mind kids being left with druggies...

I voted yes to both, but I'm a little indifferent to the gambling issue.

Random drug testing for welfare is a good idea - maybe it helps break the cycle in some cases of drug use excluding someone from the workforce, plus all the bad stuff for small kids or impressionable teens in that environment.

As for the work stuff - I don't do anything to jeapordize myself with regard to a drug test so I really don't care. I've never been subjected to ongoing random pee tests, just pre-employment. My last pee test I managed to hit 9 feet on the wall, so I scored in the 95 percentile.

For weed, hell no - legalize it and make the meth heads work the fields.

BTW, wouldn't the cost of conducting the tests make welfare even more expensive for the tax payers?

kalm wrote:BTW, wouldn't the cost of conducting the tests make welfare even more expensive for the tax payers?

Probably not because you'd eliminate half the recipients.

kalm wrote:For weed, hell no - legalize it and make the meth heads work the fields.

BTW, wouldn't the cost of conducting the tests make welfare even more expensive for the tax payers?

Not at all. Drug testing would actually save tons of money for the taxpayers. Urine dip tests are cheap as dirt, and if they get busted, no more bennies for them.

Make weed legal, but if your employer mandates that you can't smoke dope while employed for them and you fail a drug test, you're done, period.

if you're going to force casinos to ban people,
then why not also force liquor/beer and cigarette retailers to ban people as well.
and whoever sells those stupid "spinner" wheel rims or whatever they are called.

JayJ79 wrote:if you're going to force casinos to ban people,
then why not also force liquor/beer and cigarette retailers to ban people as well.
and whoever sells those stupid "spinner" wheel rims or whatever they are called.

Agree, this is not something that the business world needs to police for the government.

UNHWildCats wrote:I want to vote no, but that would be penalizing innocent kids for their parents sins...

I think if they cant pass a drug test than benefits should still be issued, but perhaps to a third party who will ensure the needs of the children are being met... perhaps a neighborhood church who can have church volunteers go grocery shopping with the family to ensure food stamps are being used to buy food for the home instead of being sold for cash for drugs. Of course this makes things much more difficult.

How many of those on welfare aren't involved in a church? How many are from neighborhoods full of drug users so they don't have the neighborhood to help them out? How many have a family history of drug abuse, so there is no family to fall back on?

If that is the case the third party becomes DHS, CPS, CCRR, etc... all of which are funded by a combination of federal, state, local, and private donations/grants/funds. These organizations are also already WAY too understaffed and overworked (due to a lack of proper funding) to be able to completely devote the needed attention to those families and children. These families then get "thrown into the system" and become nothing more than a number that gets visited once in a while. They also become a "drain" on the limited resources available to these agencies.


While I like the idea of a "third party" it isn't really going to be all that feasable or practical 90%+ of the time.


How about making sure that the food stamps are used for foods they need, rather than "luxery foods". I can't tell you how many times I've saw people buying $20 steaks on food stamps. Now, there is nothing wrong with anyone spending money on a quality piece of meat, but these people then lack the money to buy food that will last longer than one meal. Oh, and the number of people using food EBT to buy cigs and alcohol is outrageously high as well. Thankfully places are starting to crack down on what food stamps can and can't be used for and where they can and can't be used.

Baldy wrote:Make weed legal, but if your employer mandates that you can't smoke dope while employed for them and you fail a drug test, you're done, period.

Disagree (for argument's sake...not gonna happen) unless they can invent a better testing method. Don't see how they can (rightfully) fire people for consuming a legal substance on their own time. Partaking at work or coming in under the influence, obviously yes. But current testing methods flag you for up to 30 days, so partaking of a legal substance during your vacation could get you fired upon your return? That's BS (except in right to work states...even then it's iffy)....but i digress...I don't think it's anything I'll have to worry aboout in my lifetime....

Of all the polls, how on Earth did this not have a pee in my butt option? SMFH

bobbythekidd wrote:Of all the polls, how on Earth did this not have a pee in my butt option? SMFH

You are the only one here that commits to it and uses it like it should be used. Pee in the butt option is the way I normally see it and I assume it's because people don't want to make themselves seem vulnerable even in the joke so I'd like to say Kudo's to ya btk.

Appaholic wrote:

Baldy wrote:Make weed legal, but if your employer mandates that you can't smoke dope while employed for them and you fail a drug test, you're done, period.

Disagree (for argument's sake...not gonna happen) unless they can invent a better testing method. Don't see how they can (rightfully) fire people for consuming a legal substance on their own time. Partaking at work or coming in under the influence, obviously yes. But current testing methods flag you for up to 30 days, so partaking of a legal substance during your vacation could get you fired upon your return? That's BS (except in right to work states...even then it's iffy)....but i digress...I don't think it's anything I'll have to worry aboout in my lifetime....

It's a slippery slope.

If these casual users were truck drivers or a heavy equipment operators, or even a surgeon, would you want them on the same highway or in the operating room with a scalpel in their hands? Who's to know if they partied last weekend or took a hit off a bong before they went to work?
There isn't and won't be a better testing method for THC anytime in the near future. It simply lingers in the system for long periods of time and takes forever to metabolize.

There are companies now that won't hire you if you are just a simple tobacco user, and that type of "discrimination" is perfectly legal. Can you imagine the liability for a trucking company if one of their drivers rear ended a school bus the Monday after he went on a weekend bender with Tommy Chong?

Col Hogan wrote:Definitely need to institute drug testing on welfare recipients...

If they want the money, they need to play the game...

And Travis...apparently you don't mind kids being left with druggies...

I have no problem with them testing possible recipients and if they fail having their kids taken from them.... but whats the likelihood of our Government having the balls to do that?

Yes, welfare recipients should be drug tested, and the drug tests should be admissable in a court of law as evidence.

As for gambling, I voted no. Once they meet the qualifications for the money, it's their's to do with how they like. Gambling is a legal form of entertainment, and the government does not have the right to tell someone what to do with their money, regardless of the source.

I voted yes. As Ursus already stated, its a privilege not a right. As 89 already been stated, the costs would be more than made up for by those who lost there welfare check by testing positive.

In an ideal world the welfare $ would be limited to being only able pay for necessities: food, clothing, gas and/or public transportation, rent, necessarry utilities (electric & heat, home phone but not cable TV, internet, or cell phones).

They wouldn't have any $ left to pay for drugs, alcohol, tobacco products, gambling, etc.