Saturday, January 5, 2008

Does This Anger You?


My aunt sent me this anonymous email and I wanted to post it just to determine if others feel the same way. I know I do. I had to pass a test in order to work for my current employer.

I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB.

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 it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. 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 sitting on their backside, doing drugs, while I work. . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . . . Something has to change in this country -- and soon!


9 comments:

Malcolm said...

Hell yeah welfare recipients should have to take a urine test. I say fair is fair.

Barbara (aka Layla) said...

How funny I was going to say "Hell yeah" too even before I saw Maclcom's comment.

Its totally fair. As I type this I am listening to the Pres. Debates. I wish I could here their answers on this.

damozel said...

No, I do not agree. Most people on welfare cannot get employment. There are not enough jobs. I suspect most of them have miserable life. There's no reason to go harder on the poor than we already do.

X. Dell said...

Receiving anonymous e-mails always annoy me.

I actually have a problem with rampant drug testing for a number of reasons. First, I've been the victim of a false positive. Nothing more frustrating than trying to clear your name (which I finally did by submitting a hair test, hoping that the lab didn't screw that up too).

Sure, there are occupations where accute drug usage is a problem (drivers, machine operators), and occupations where chronic use can impair (e.g, accounting, or other detailed work).

I don't advocate drug abuse, but I fear we've become far less critical, and more accepting of government and industrial monitoring of our private lives. Such things beocome wedge issues pretty quickly. Yeah, they make sense, in an odd sort of way. But people rarely think of consequences to some policies.

So I'm hardly in favor of extending that to anywhere else. I could easily imagine that a welfare recipient that is cut off from funding and support for drug usage is far more dangerous than one who is directed to a clinic. Now if that were a provision of the urine testing, then okay. But I don't see a politician sticking her or his neck out for that, because it will cost.

pjazzypar said...

Malcolm and Barbara (aka layla),

I am glad someone is on the same page with me. There is no way that I should be required to take a drug test TO BE EMPLOYED while people getting "free money" are not required to do so. The topper is some of the free money is being deducted from the check that I was drug tested for.

damozel,

You are right, there are not enough jobs and I respect your opinion. However I do not see one reason why anyone living on the government dole should have a problem submitting to drug testing, unless their dirty. I don't know anything about you or the people you know, but I know people on public assistance and Social Security who stand at the mailbox on the first of the month and wait for their checks so that they can go get high. It's sad, but it's real.

x.dell,

I know where you are coming from about monitoring private citizens and all. The drug test I took had nothing to do with my ability to perform the tasks required for the job, but I had to submit anyway. Folks are less likely to have false positives if they inform of all the prescription and non prescription drugs they have ingested prior to testing. I think you give up your privacy and anonymity when you accept government handouts in lieu of working.

Lori said...

Hmm, interesting conversaton about a very complex issue. Personally, I don't see how, in the long-run, mind you, requiring folks on the dole to take urine tests will save money.

I mean, think about it. What are the folks who get cut-off gonna do for dough? I already know and it aint 'go get a job' (LOL). Nope,
they'll be out snatching purses, breaking into houses, robbing liquor stores, selling more dope and a$$ . . . I'm saying, I'm just keeping it real. Being from the dirty South, I've lived amongst folks like these and have them all up in my family--crack-heads, dope-dealers, thieves, armed robbers, murderers and whatever else you got (LOL). Over the holidays, I broke break with a couple of folks who've been charged with attempted murder (one awaiting trail, one on probation) both of them women.

The way I see it, some folks we're gonna support either in or out of jail. Doesn't make it right in my book, just makes it how it is.

If we're going to REQUIRE welfare folks to do anything, it ought to be tied to education and training. Learn how to read. Get a GED. Enroll in somebody's college. Learn a marketable skill/trade. Give folks a REAL opportunity to better their lives.

Same goes for folks in prison. They ought not be released without some sort of educational or training certificate. But y'all know that would be too much like right (LOL). And the beat, sadly, goes on . . .

Lori said...

Sorry about the typos. Should have been "conversation" and "broke bread". I'm sure there are others, but those are ones that jumped out at me. You know how it is--sometimes the fingers move faster than the brain (smile).

pjazzypar said...

Hi Lori,

I Don't worry about the typos and I get your drift. I think some people will get jobs and I agree with you about providing education and job training. Our lives are being monitored a lot more than we are led to believe and I'll bet there is an F. B. I. file on both you and me, but I digress.

I really could care less who uses drugs or who doesn't I just think there should be some fiscal responsibility to us as taxpayers. Hey Lori, check this one out. The little money that the crackheads and other assorted drug abuser receive is really not supporting their drug habits. That's why we have various sorts of crime associated with drug use. That money maybe lasts for a day or two then they are back on their hustle.

You hit on something very important, which I am currently in the process of writing my dissertation on, what can we as a society do to help former prisoners reintegrate into back into the community? I have ideas for how to approach the problem after release, but you are correct in your assessment that something needs to change within the prison walls. The U. S. penal system is punitive rather than rehabilitative.

I hate when I jump from one topic to another, but I am passionate about reform on all levels. Back to public assistance, I know in California and Michigan you are given a time line to get your act together (get an education, job training, employment, etc.) and if you dally you lose your benefits when the time limit is up. I know life is not fair, but I just ain't feeling taking care of able-bodied folks indefinitely, especially when they can't submit to the same invasions of privacy that I face.

Nicholas said...

Nope! Doesn't anger me at all!