Why drug testing of welfare recipients is a bad idea

**JollyRoger** · 03-04-2013 02:13 AM

(03-04-2013 01:05 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-03-2013 10:01 PM)JollyRoger Wrote: I don't know about you, but I don't like giving money for taxes that goes to welfare recipients who just take that money and buy crack with it. Or even trade food stamps for drugs.

Once you accept money from the Govt., you submit to their rules pertaining to the receipt of said money.

If you don't like the regulations or attempts to reform welfare...

Don't use it. And if you do, don't buy drugs with it.

Only 2% of people on welfare use drugs.

Should college students have to submit to a monthly drug test of they are getting a government grant?

Should you have to submit to a drug test in order to get your tax return?

Should a drug addict be left to starve in the streets?

Only 2% huh?

How did you get those numbers unless YOU TESTED THE WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR DRUGS????

I call bullshit.

get a life.

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 02:14 AM

(03-04-2013 01:25 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote: The welfare system is a joke and a large number of people cheat the system which cost billions as well.

When you test the person and they're positive the check gets cut off which much cheaper than the testing. When you weed out the people cheating the system and people using while on welfare that saves billions.

Cheating the system is fraud, which is already illegal and they can go to prison for it. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

And why shouldn't a drug addict be allowed to eat, or have shelter?

Would you deny a homeless veteran a meal because he smoked a joint in the park last week?

As far as cost goes, you are dead wrong, and you obviously didn't bother to read the article. It costs over $100,000 to weed out just ONE drug user who might get $9000 a year in benefits.

The program in Florida, and earlier in Michigan proved that it costs taxpayers millions more than they saved by denying a few people benefits.

People who shouldn't be denied benefits anyway. Just because someone smoked a little weed or is a hardcore addict has NO bearing whatsoever on their need for assistance. Actually, the real addict has probably even MORE need for the assistance.

**TheMadHatter** · 03-04-2013 02:17 AM

(03-04-2013 02:03 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 01:21 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:
(03-04-2013 01:03 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-03-2013 06:11 PM)TheMadHatter Wrote: Where do you get this $75 a person number?

The police use a much cheaper version for things like DUIs and probation tests that cost a couple bucks each.

I would like to see where the data comes from proving these cost otherwise pee in the cup if you want help or just get a freaking job and not our problem.

The cost of the test is more than just test strip itself. The drug testing company charges a rate. In Florida I believe that actually turned out to be $55 per test, by the company owned by the Governor who made the law. Talk about conflict of interest.

But now on top of the $55, you have to factor in the cost in man-hours and all the paper shuffling that goes along with it. Basically you are creating a whole new agency of the welfare department, all on the taxpayer dime.

A massive expansion of welfare does not shrink welfare or save money, not matter how you figure it.

Again, where is the data to back this up?
Maybe a link?

Average cost in 2002 was $42 dollars.

U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Robert L. DuPont, Teresa G. Campbell and Jacqueline J. Mazza, Report of a Preliminary Study: Elements of a Successful School-Based Student Drug Testing Program 8 (2002)

But even if the test only cost $5 you are STILL spending MORE money on EXPANDING welfare.

Your math is waaaaaay off, look at the above post.

At $42 per for 56.6 million with a 2% rejection it's $2,377,200,000 with an annual savings of $3,056,400,000

Numbers don't lie and it looks like you didn't do the math.

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 02:20 AM

(03-04-2013 01:27 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: What business is it of ours?!

They aren't trading their food for pills they are trading our money for them, that card isn't food it's tax dollars, they aren't going to safeway getting some food then going to their dealer trading fruit roll-ups for some smack.

What they are doing is called fraud which is illegal if they want to do drugs I don't care but I do care is if American tax payers are footing the bill so passing a drug test that you still haven't proven would be the cost you claim it to be because they have instant test not just blood test that do cost around the range you are speaking of but nothing you have shown proves this is the test they would have to submit to and even if they did the number of applicants would drop substantially due to the fact that drug users know they are dirty and wouldn't apply just like when an employer advertises they drug test for employment, the druggies don't show up.

And fraud is already illegal. That still doesn't justify violating the 4th Amendment just to check and see if there is anything illegal going on. That's no different than the police stopping your car without cause and giving you a cavity search just to make sure you don't have any drugs. Hey, it's a public roadway, paid for in tax dollars. Gotta make sure everyone is safe.

"Drug testing will stop druggies from applying for welfare."

FALSE. An internal document states unequivocally...

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload”

This shows that there is no "hidden" cost benefit to the program. It also shatters the myth that poor people use illicit drugs at a significantly higher rate than the national average. Studies done on the subject reject
that myth, and many show that people in poverty are actually less likely to use illicit drugs. That conclusion is supported by the Florida statistics too. If there was no sudden downturn in the number of welfare applications when the drug-testing went into effect, then the 2.6% who did test positive is a fairly accurate assessment of detectable drug use among welfare applicants at any given time, seeing that the program provided no significant deterrent.

Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.co...z2MWPma8LU

**TheMadHatter** · 03-04-2013 02:22 AM

(03-04-2013 02:20 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 01:27 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: What business is it of ours?!

They aren't trading their food for pills they are trading our money for them, that card isn't food it's tax dollars, they aren't going to safeway getting some food then going to their dealer trading fruit roll-ups for some smack.

What they are doing is called fraud which is illegal if they want to do drugs I don't care but I do care is if American tax payers are footing the bill so passing a drug test that you still haven't proven would be the cost you claim it to be because they have instant test not just blood test that do cost around the range you are speaking of but nothing you have shown proves this is the test they would have to submit to and even if they did the number of applicants would drop substantially due to the fact that drug users know they are dirty and wouldn't apply just like when an employer advertises they drug test for employment, the druggies don't show up.

And fraud is already illegal. That still doesn't justify violating the 4th Amendment just to check and see if there is anything illegal going on. That's no different than the police stopping your car without cause and giving you a cavity search just to make sure you don't have any drugs. Hey, it's a public roadway, paid for in tax dollars. Gotta make sure everyone is safe.

"Drug testing will stop druggies from applying for welfare."

FALSE. An internal document states unequivocally...

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload”

This shows that there is no "hidden" cost benefit to the program. It also shatters the myth that poor people use illicit drugs at a significantly higher rate than the national average. Studies done on the subject reject
that myth, and many show that people in poverty are actually less likely to use illicit drugs. That conclusion is supported by the Florida statistics too. If there was no sudden downturn in the number of welfare applications when the drug-testing went into effect, then the 2.6% who did test positive is a fairly accurate assessment of detectable drug use among welfare applicants at any given time, seeing that the program provided no significant deterrent.

Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.co...z2MWPma8LU

That's a blog how about some real links?

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 02:22 AM

(03-04-2013 01:27 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote: How do you know only 2% are using without the testing ? I don't think you thought this argument through.

Florida ended up with a rate of 2.6%

Michigan was running between 2-4% before their law was stricken down as a violation of the 4th Amendment.

**JollyRoger** · 03-04-2013 02:23 AM

(03-04-2013 02:22 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 01:27 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote: How do you know only 2% are using without the testing ? I don't think you thought this argument through.

Florida ended up with a rate of 2.6%

Michigan was running between 2-4% before their law was stricken down as a violation of the 4th Amendment.

That is NOT 2% of ALL recipients. That is 2% of two states.

Like i said. I call bullshit and this is propaganda.

Test welfare recipients. if positive. cut their asses OFF.

**I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ** · 03-04-2013 02:24 AM

(03-04-2013 02:14 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 01:25 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote: The welfare system is a joke and a large number of people cheat the system which cost billions as well.

When you test the person and they're positive the check gets cut off which much cheaper than the testing. When you weed out the people cheating the system and people using while on welfare that saves billions.

Cheating the system is fraud, which is already illegal and they can go to prison for it. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

And why shouldn't a drug addict be allowed to eat, or have shelter?

Would you deny a homeless veteran a meal because he smoked a joint in the park last week?

As far as cost goes, you are dead wrong, and you obviously didn't bother to read the article. It costs over $100,000 to weed out just ONE drug user who might get $9000 a year in benefits.

The program in Florida, and earlier in Michigan proved that it costs taxpayers millions more than they saved by denying a few people benefits.

People who shouldn't be denied benefits anyway. Just because someone smoked a little weed or is a hardcore addict has NO bearing whatsoever on their need for assistance. Actually, the real addict has probably even MORE need for the assistance.

It does not matter what I would do so that argument is fallacious.

Welfare is not SSI or veteran pay and I never said anyone was a hardcore addict for smoking weed (another fallacious argument).

If a person has money for drugs they clearly don't need welfare and if they want a good job a drug test is required most of the time anyway.

**JollyRoger** · 03-04-2013 02:26 AM

A UA is too easy to beat. I say give them blood and/or hair follicle tests.

**TheMadHatter** · 03-04-2013 02:29 AM

(03-04-2013 02:26 AM)JollyRoger Wrote: A UA is too easy to beat. I say give them blood and/or hair follicle tests.

I'm still waiting on him to refute my math argument based off of his 2% number even though the blog he linked to was 2.6%

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 02:31 AM

(03-04-2013 01:32 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: Very good point, even at $75 a person it's still much lower than the few hundred dollar check they would get every month I would even agree with a part of the bill saying that if you fail the test you become ineligible for benefits for the next 12 months.

You're forgetting that you have to test hundreds of thousands of people just to find a few hundred drug users.

Let's assume a cost of $35 per test. That's $3.5 million for 100,000 welfare recipients to be tested. Out of that, 200 will test positive. Figuring an average $9000 annual benefit, you will save $1.8 million on rejected applicant benefits.

Net loss. of $1.7 million.

And that is before calculating ANY of the other added expenses aside from the drug test alone. You are talking about hundreds of thousands of man-hours paid to state employees to process all of the drug testing information.

Now you also have to realize that the person who was refjected, will now turn to crime in order to survive. So now you will still wind up paying for their meals, but only after they go out and shoot some single mother in the face who was working the graveyard shift at the gas station.

**Beyond Smolensk** · 03-04-2013 02:33 AM

On the subject of drug testing,what about the police? who are (supposedly) drug tested one time,when they're hired and then never again,because of strong arm union tactics and the police carry high powered weapons and confiscate drugs all the time,wtf's up with that?! but the guy or girl bagging groceries is drug tested,thats f####d up and here in boston two fire fighters were killed while fighting a blaze and both of them had cocaine in their systems and still the fire fighters union refuses to drug test firemen and thats seriously f####d up...

The San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs do not drug test their employees > http://www.kcoy.com/story/21013749/shoul...rug-tested

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 02:38 AM

(03-04-2013 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: 4. "drug addict be left to starve in the streets" Yes, if they wont get off the dope or can't hold a job then they are just a drag on society, remember "your fare share" well they are not doing anything but dragging us all down with them and taking away from those that truly do need the help.

The average has run from 2-4% in every place they tried this. 2.6% in Florida.

(03-04-2013 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: 4. "drug addict be left to starve in the streets" Yes, if they wont get off the dope or can't hold a job then they are just a drag on society, remember "your fare share" well they are not doing anything but dragging us all down with them and taking away from those that truly do need the help.

Then why not all Americans? At some point in our lives, every single American will partake of some government benefit in one form or another, even if it just means driving down a public highway.

(03-04-2013 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: 4. "drug addict be left to starve in the streets" Yes, if they wont get off the dope or can't hold a job then they are just a drag on society, remember "your fare share" well they are not doing anything but dragging us all down with them and taking away from those that truly do need the help.

Your fault for over-paying to start with. You want your check? Drug test. We need to make sure we aren't giving tax breaks to drug addicts who will only use their deductions to go buy drugs.

(03-04-2013 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: 4. "drug addict be left to starve in the streets" Yes, if they wont get off the dope or can't hold a job then they are just a drag on society, remember "your fare share" well they are not doing anything but dragging us all down with them and taking away from those that truly do need the help.

You are assuming that drugs are the reason for unemployment. There are plenty of drug addicts with jobs, and 98% of people on welfare who don't have jobs, don't use drugs.

So your argument is a red herring.

**TheMadHatter** · 03-04-2013 02:43 AM

(03-04-2013 02:31 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 01:32 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: Very good point, even at $75 a person it's still much lower than the few hundred dollar check they would get every month I would even agree with a part of the bill saying that if you fail the test you become ineligible for benefits for the next 12 months.

You're forgetting that you have to test hundreds of thousands of people just to find a few hundred drug users.

Let's assume a cost of $35 per test. That's $3.5 million for 100,000 welfare recipients to be tested. Out of that, 200 will test positive. Figuring an average $9000 annual benefit, you will save $1.8 million on rejected applicant benefits.

Net loss. of $1.7 million.

And that is before calculating ANY of the other added expenses aside from the drug test alone. You are talking about hundreds of thousands of man-hours paid to state employees to process all of the drug testing information.

Now you also have to realize that the person who was refjected, will now turn to crime in order to survive. So now you will still wind up paying for their meals, but only after they go out and shoot some single mother in the face who was working the graveyard shift at the gas station.

Try reading post #30...
I did the math for every person 56.6 million total welfare recipients in America.

"Now you also have to realize that the person who was refjected, will now turn to crime in order to survive."

That's where the 2nd amendment comes in.

**TheMadHatter** · 03-04-2013 02:50 AM

(03-04-2013 02:38 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: 1. Proof of "Only 2% of people on welfare use drugs"?

The average has run from 2-4% in every place they tried this. 2.6% in Florida.

(03-04-2013 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: 2. "college students" Yes, why not?

Then why not all Americans? At some point in our lives, every single American will partake of some government benefit in one form or another, even if it just means driving down a public highway.

(03-04-2013 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: 3. "tax return" If it was government assistance I would say yes but since it's your own money that you are getting back because you over paid then no.

Your fault for over-paying to start with. You want your check? Drug test. We need to make sure we aren't giving tax breaks to drug addicts who will only use their deductions to go buy drugs.

(03-04-2013 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: 4. "drug addict be left to starve in the streets" Yes, if they wont get off the dope or can't hold a job then they are just a drag on society, remember "your fare share" well they are not doing anything but dragging us all down with them and taking away from those that truly do need the help.

You are assuming that drugs are the reason for unemployment. There are plenty of drug addicts with jobs, and 98% of people on welfare who don't have jobs, don't use drugs.

So your argument is a red herring.

1. Still waiting for proof not just you saying it.

2. How the hell is driving down a road welfare?
I would really like to hear this argument.

3. Okay I will take a drug test and those that don't want to can just pay less during the year and make up the difference at the end.

4. If they have a job they don't need welfare now do they? (Why would they be starving in the street if they have a job?)
Still waiting on the proof of 2%
I wasn't assuming anything, if they can pass a drug test they can get public assistance.

Your circular logic is interesting though, wrong, but interesting.

**Your Mom** · 03-04-2013 02:57 AM

Wouldn't it it more advantageous to drug test the liars and cheats who control the system?

Also audit who is lobbying said and expose the conflicts of interests.

In short, reclaim the people's vote. Although that is a misnomer as the majority have never really had a say, more like the appearance of having a say.

If you don't have squillions, you do not matter and it has been forever that way.

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 03:02 AM

(03-04-2013 02:22 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: That's a blog how about some real links?

The sources are linked on the blog page.

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 03:04 AM

(03-04-2013 02:23 AM)JollyRoger Wrote: That is NOT 2% of ALL recipients. That is 2% of two states.

Like i said. I call bullshit and this is propaganda.

Test welfare recipients. if positive. cut their asses OFF.

There is no reason to believe that other states would be substantially different.

I also don't see why a drug user should be denied basic necessities and left to die in the streets. Or worse, left to the streets where their desperation will fuel a crime surge that we taxpayers will have to foot the bill for in the long run anyway.

**TheMadHatter** · 03-04-2013 03:12 AM

(03-04-2013 03:04 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 02:23 AM)JollyRoger Wrote: That is NOT 2% of ALL recipients. That is 2% of two states.

Like i said. I call bullshit and this is propaganda.

Test welfare recipients. if positive. cut their asses OFF.

There is no reason to believe that other states would be substantially different.

I also don't see why a drug user should be denied basic necessities and left to die in the streets. Or worse, left to the streets where their desperation will fuel a crime surge that we taxpayers will have to foot the bill for in the long run anyway.

Because it's not our job to pay for their drugs.

It's obvious now that you are a drug user and you want to be able to collect welfare so that you don't have to work for your own fix, it's not America's job to make sure you get high and if you are getting high why should we pay?

On what moral ground do you have to take from others so that you can get more drugs?
Surge in crime? What exactly do you call taking from someone something they do not chose to give away so you can get drugs? THEFT...

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 03:12 AM

(03-04-2013 02:24 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote:
(03-04-2013 02:14 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 01:25 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote: The welfare system is a joke and a large number of people cheat the system which cost billions as well.

When you test the person and they're positive the check gets cut off which much cheaper than the testing. When you weed out the people cheating the system and people using while on welfare that saves billions.

Cheating the system is fraud, which is already illegal and they can go to prison for it. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

And why shouldn't a drug addict be allowed to eat, or have shelter?

Would you deny a homeless veteran a meal because he smoked a joint in the park last week?

As far as cost goes, you are dead wrong, and you obviously didn't bother to read the article. It costs over $100,000 to weed out just ONE drug user who might get $9000 a year in benefits.

The program in Florida, and earlier in Michigan proved that it costs taxpayers millions more than they saved by denying a few people benefits.

People who shouldn't be denied benefits anyway. Just because someone smoked a little weed or is a hardcore addict has NO bearing whatsoever on their need for assistance. Actually, the real addict has probably even MORE need for the assistance.

It does not matter what I would do so that argument is fallacious.

Welfare is not SSI or veteran pay and I never said anyone was a hardcore addict for smoking weed (another fallacious argument).

If a person has money for drugs they clearly don't need welfare and if they want a good job a drug test is required most of the time anyway.

I didn't say anything about SSI or veteran pay. I said should a homeless veteran be denied welfare because he smoked a joint.

I also didn't say a weed smoker was a hardcore addict. I said that neither should be rejected.

What about someone who grows their own weed? The notion that drug users are spending all of their welfare money on drugs is false anyway. For the most part, drug addictions are funded by selling drugs.

There are plenty of jobs out there that don't drug test. I don't agree with drug testing in the workplace either. But there is still a huge difference between a private company doing a drug test, and the government.

The government must have a warrant, evidence of a crime, before they can search you. You take that away from people on welfare, you might as well just light the entire Constitution on fire and smoke it.

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 03:14 AM

(03-04-2013 02:26 AM)JollyRoger Wrote: A UA is too easy to beat. I say give them blood and/or hair follicle tests.

Now you're talking even MORE expensive. Not to mention more intrusive. What better way for the government to start their DNA profile of society.

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 03:15 AM

(03-04-2013 02:29 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:
(03-04-2013 02:26 AM)JollyRoger Wrote: A UA is too easy to beat. I say give them blood and/or hair follicle tests.

I'm still waiting on him to refute my math argument based off of his 2% number even though the blog he linked to was 2.6%

You forgot to multiply by 12. You have to test at least once a month to be effective at all.

**JollyRoger** · 03-04-2013 03:15 AM

(03-04-2013 03:04 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 02:23 AM)JollyRoger Wrote: That is NOT 2% of ALL recipients. That is 2% of two states.

Like i said. I call bullshit and this is propaganda.

Test welfare recipients. if positive. cut their asses OFF.

There is no reason to believe that other states would be substantially different.

I also don't see why a drug user should be denied basic necessities and left to die in the streets. Or worse, left to the streets where their desperation will fuel a crime surge that we taxpayers will have to foot the bill for in the long run anyway.

No reason to believe they wouldn't be either.

**JollyRoger** · 03-04-2013 03:16 AM

(03-04-2013 03:14 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 02:26 AM)JollyRoger Wrote: A UA is too easy to beat. I say give them blood and/or hair follicle tests.

Now you're talking even MORE expensive. Not to mention more intrusive. What better way for the government to start their DNA profile of society.

I. as a tax payer, would MUCH rather spend 100 dollars on a test than BILLIONS in payouts to recipients who just use the money for drugs. And the occasional hoe.

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 03:18 AM

(03-04-2013 02:33 AM)Beyond Smolensk Wrote: On the subject of drug testing,what about the police? who are (supposedly) drug tested one time,when they're hired and then never again,because of strong arm union tactics and the police carry high powered weapons and confiscate drugs all the time,wtf's up with that?! but the guy or girl bagging groceries is drug tested,thats f####d up and here in boston two fire fighters were killed while fighting a blaze and both of them had cocaine in their systems and still the fire fighters union refuses to drug test firemen and thats seriously f####d up...

The San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs do not drug test their employees > http://www.kcoy.com/story/21013749/shoul...rug-tested

I knew this guy personally....

Cocaine Cop Gets 3 1/2 Years
Scumbag
David Palazzolo, a 20-year veteran of the Town of Poughkeepsie Police Department, will be out of prison in as little as 3 1/2 years under the terms of his plea bargain arrangement. He pled guilty at the Dutchess County Courthouse this morning to three felony counts stemming from what was originally a 35-count indictment.

The former police officer used his position to protect two known drug dealers in exchange for cocaine. He tipped them off to investigations being conducted, where and when surveillance was being carried out, and even identified undercover narcotics officers and the vehicles they were driving. He illegally accessed the department's computers numerous times in order to glean this information, which he shared with the cocaine kingpins. It was also alleged that he threatened to murder a man who was being held in a jail cell, if the man spoke to investigators about the drug dealers Palazzolo was protecting.

Amid the investigation into his activities, the corrupt cop was suspended but then reinstated and worked for another 4 months before finally retiring to North Carolina in November of 2010. He will still collect his pension. Also charged with drug offenses were his wife Carol, 44, Christopher Reynolds, 49, of the Town of Poughkeepsie and Jesse Roldan, 35, of Wappingers Falls.

David Palazzolo remains free on $100,000 bond pending sentencing on December 1, when he will begins serving 3 1/2 to 10 1/2 years in state prison.

Now I am no expert, but it seems to me that if the shoe was on the other foot so to speak, if it had been a civilian facing these sort of accusations, they would have wound up in prison for a lot longer. Threatening to kill a cop alone would probably be enough to invoke a stiff prison sentence. Not to mention compromising police investigations, tampering with witnesses, bribery, bartering with large amounts of cocaine, and so forth. I have seen numerous cases where someone caught with a small amount of cocaine faces much more prison time. Once again we see that there are two sets of law in this country. One code for police, and another for us, the second-rate citizens. Once again the Dutchess County DA's office proves their incompetence as well.

Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.co...z2MWeH9N4H

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 03:20 AM

(03-04-2013 02:43 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: Try reading post #30...
I did the math for every person 56.6 million total welfare recipients in America.

"Now you also have to realize that the person who was refjected, will now turn to crime in order to survive."

That's where the 2nd amendment comes in.

Ohhhh, so you support the 2nd Amendment but not the 4th. Hypocrite.

People on welfare should give up their 4th Amendment rights and submit to a drug test, because they might be drug addicts.

Gun owners should give up their 2nd Amendment rights because they might use a gun to go out and kill a lot of innocent people.

If I am going to be drug tested at work, people on welfare need to be drug tested too.

If I am not going to carry a gun, you can't either.

People on welfare are druggies.

Gun-owners are violent people.

People on welfare should just go out and get a job.

People should just call the police if they need help.

People on welfare abuse the system.

People who own guns put us all in danger.

Welfare drug testing will force people to stop using drugs.

Banning guns will stop people from killing eachother.

There are ways to get help other than welfare.

There are better alternatives than owning a gun.

I was an addict, I never asked for help.

I have been robbed before, I didn't nee a gun.

People should be forced to go to rehab if they are on drugs.

Gun owners should have to undergo extensive psych exams.

If you want welfare, prove you are clean.

Prove that you need a gun.

Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.co...z2MWf1bfls

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 03:25 AM

(03-04-2013 02:50 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: 1. Still waiting for proof not just you saying it.

2. How the hell is driving down a road welfare?
I would really like to hear this argument.

3. Okay I will take a drug test and those that don't want to can just pay less during the year and make up the difference at the end.

4. If they have a job they don't need welfare now do they? (Why would they be starving in the street if they have a job?)
Still waiting on the proof of 2%
I wasn't assuming anything, if they can pass a drug test they can get public assistance.

Your circular logic is interesting though, wrong, but interesting.

If you are using a public roadway, it is funded by tax dollars. Public roads are a public service. If you use a government service, you can be drug tested.

If there was a job for them, they wouldn't be on welfare in the first place.

If you think that 2-4% is wrong, then prove it. Meanwhile, in Florida it was 2.6% and the source was already cited.

Go Google it if you don't believe it.

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 03:27 AM

(03-04-2013 02:57 AM)Your Mom Wrote: Wouldn't it it more advantageous to drug test the liars and cheats who control the system?

Also audit who is lobbying said and expose the conflicts of interests.

In short, reclaim the people's vote. Although that is a misnomer as the majority have never really had a say, more like the appearance of having a say.

If you don't have squillions, you do not matter and it has been forever that way.

“People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.” -Professor Jason Read, University of Southern Maine

Read more: http://mwwuamerica.blogspot.com/2013/01/...z2MWgnhZIF

**Your Mom** · 03-04-2013 03:30 AM

(03-04-2013 03:27 AM)Captain Six Wrote:
(03-04-2013 02:57 AM)Your Mom Wrote: Wouldn't it it more advantageous to drug test the liars and cheats who control the system?

Also audit who is lobbying said and expose the conflicts of interests.

In short, reclaim the people's vote. Although that is a misnomer as the majority have never really had a say, more like the appearance of having a say.

If you don't have squillions, you do not matter and it has been forever that way.

“People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.” -Professor Jason Read, University of Southern Maine

Read more: http://mwwuamerica.blogspot.com/2013/01/...z2MWgnhZIF

Exactly. Very nicely put.

**Captain Six** · 03-04-2013 03:31 AM

(03-04-2013 03:12 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote: Because it's not our job to pay for their drugs.

It's obvious now that you are a drug user and you want to be able to collect welfare so that you don't have to work for your own fix, it's not America's job to make sure you get high and if you are getting high why should we pay?

On what moral ground do you have to take from others so that you can get more drugs?
Surge in crime? What exactly do you call taking from someone something they do not chose to give away so you can get drugs? THEFT...

Ad hominems now? Yeah, that should prove your point, lol.

If you can show that someone is spending welfare money on drugs, that is a crime, and they can be prosecuted. You would also have probable cause for a warrant.

But you don't have the right to take away someone's 4th Amendment rights because someone else is a criminal.