Subjecting welfare recipients to urine tests as a condition to receiving assistance is...?
Name: Lyndell Jones Email: Response:
I feel that if you sit around waiting for a handout you have to abide by the rules. Giving urine is such a small sacrifice to make. I will these people would learn how to be self -reliance. As long as they sit around acting like children waiting for a handout they are going to be subjected to this type of treatment. Growup and get a JOB!!!
Name: KLeonard Email: k8wra@juno.com Response:
One of the dumbest, but not unexpected, ideas to come along in a long time. Dumb because it doesn't begin to address the real cause of waste from drugs in our society and would only add to costs on taxpayers. The real waste from drug use comes from the "recreational" drug users. Those who are spread out in all levels of government, business, and society at large. The "Fawn Halls" who helped Ollie North shred all fo those "arms for hostages" files; the middle level bureaucrats, in government and private enterprise, who make wrong-headed, costly mistakes everyday because their heads aren't clear. The Pentagon's high level military people, who ride in chauffeur-driven cars who make billion-dollar errors every day, because their heads aren't clear and they never saw a weapon they didn't love. They are there and they are costing us dearly. If we got rid of all of the "recreational" drug users, the drug peddlers couldn't make a living supplying the real addicts, there aren't enough of them. But it is to be expected, society has always punished the poor for being poor. There used to be debtor's prisons for people who fell on hard luck. Now there is the stigma of "those people TAKING welfare hand-outs." Besides, they don't have a lobby and they are easy to pick on.
Name: J Fobbs Email: JFobbs@webtv.net Response:
Random testing could prove to be just another
way of humiliating some recipients who,due to
temporary circumstances,are in need of public
assistance or who may even need assistance for
an extended period of time. Some of the methods
being suggested to eliminate abusers of the
system are actually giant steps backward to a
day when adc mothers were told not to get
pregnant or risk being cut off of assistance but
yet they were not educated concerning birth
control or family planning. I shudder to think
of the many women who got botched up abortions
in order to keep from losing the food off of the
table. I am not totally opposed to urine
testing. I think that anyone who has a history
of drug abuse should be randomly tested from
time to time. I also think they should be
provided with the necessary rehabilitation in
order to become free of drugs and to be able to
cope with lifes many circumstances. Its
interesting to note that one never hears about
urine testing of foreign immigrants who come
here by the thousands, get on public assistance,
get loans in order to open up businesses in
minority communities where their merchandise is
sometimes as much as 25% higher than everywhere
else while those of us who have lived here for
hundreds of years and find ourselves down on our
luck must be threatened with humiliation in
order to survive.
Name: Ralph Randall Email: Response:
I agree with Dee.
The government needs to find different alternatives for it's job creation programs. Money spent drug testing welfare recepients could be better used else where, more teachers smaller class rooms, stop closing schools. It is time for government to changes it's police state mentality developed during the slave days. We need a government that will spend as much money for education as for surviellance (GOD used Marion Barry to show America the folly of it's ways!!). We need a government that shows support for education by increasing versus decreasing funding for education. We need a government that understands that testing welfare recepients is a waste because there are starving, homeless children in America and until this issue is settled we have no funds for such test. We need a Government that understands you can not legislate morality and stop spending valuable resources this way.
The 1993 or 1994 "Save our Cities Save our Children" march on Washington called by the Mayors of major urban cities was an appeal to our Government to invest in our children, is this how they respond to that apeal? I thought they were dismantling the system, to help the deficit, because it's not working? So, what's the point?
Name: Email: beckyw@stjames.k12.mo.us Response:
No I think it is an invasion of privacy. I think instead welfare should be limited to 6mo to a year. If they want to spend that time doing drugs instead of trying to better themselfves so be it. Lets not support them anymore.
Name: rlands Email: rlands@taja.com Response:
This country has us peeing in more cups then I care to think about it. If this continues there will be know need for restrooms. Really folks, in truth the government does not really care if a person is on drugs or not, if they did then they would be addressing the problem from a proactive view rather than a reactive view. The government is not trying to give anybody anything. The US has corrupted the welfare system, to a point that they only way to fix it is to eliminate it, (if they are trying to fix it). It is sad that this country has reached this point in its short history. This country is so a_ _ backward. We spend our time and money on entertainment and self pleasures, till our appetite has become insatiable. Why is it so difficult to understand that the money should be spent in areas that build family and community (education, housing, etc.)? It really upsets me that people in decision making positions would try to pass the responsibility off the the very people they are beating up. It's like telling an abused child, it's there fault. NO!! it isn't. Stop spending all the money to be important and spend it educating and building family. But f course this is a moot point isn't it? Peace
Name: A. Toomer Email: Response:
I don't think that welfare recipients should be sujected
to urine tests. Bear in mind, however, that many employers
routinely subject employees to drug testing. As a condition
of employment, my current employer required that I submit to drug
testing before being hired. On its surface it seems mean-spirited that we subject welfare
recipients to drug testing, but ultimately it may be no more than what they will be
subjected to when they re-join the workforce.
Name: Email: qnard2.aol.com Response:
I believe that subjecting welfare recipients to urine samples is pointless. It is not the child's fault that the mother or father is irresponsible. The system is not a good one but if the mother is cut off completely, then we know the child is damned. At least this way the child may have a small chance of receiving the assistance necessary. But one way to eliminate the need for urine samples, is to stop the government from bringing drugs into the country.
Name: Skye Email: Response:
I find it insulting & prejudicial. It assumes everyone who needs help is on drugs and up to no good. It's totally rediculous & unfair to impose these conditions on one group of people when there are people who have great responcibilities and none are imposed on them. By this I mean doctors, teachers, school bus, drivers. It seems that if you are of a certain class and you have problems, you're down on you luck, or it's just terrible what you have to go through. If you are not on the upper scale , too bad, you're no good, shiftless and lazy. It's just another way for THEM to line their pockets and screw everyone else.
Name: datakat Email: @pacbellnet.net Response:
If the aim of testing is to disqualify people to save money, then I am against it.
I would like to think it is a way to point out to sick people, that they need to get help to kick their habit.
Then help them find it.
Name: Henry Brandon Email: HBrando@ibm.net Response:
I'd like to direct my response to two respondents
in particular (Tanya Robinson and Gary Reed). It
never ceases to amaze me how so many people talk as
if we eliminated welfare, that would solve so
many of society's ills. Can't they see that the
money spent on welfare is such a minor portion of
the federal budget to begin with?
Both of thier responses takes the position that
recipients are using drugs and to prevent our tax
dollars from going to them, we need to test them
and weed these people out. Wouldn't a more com-
passionate response be to test these people and
offer assistance to those using these substances?
I submit that if you're concerned about our tax
dollars, there are many places you can look at where
spending could be curtailed. Until there are valid
alternatives, efforts such as these only increase
public embarassment for people (to coin Tanya's words),
"that are trying to improve thier lives".
Gary, is it reasonable to subject 75% of people to
this embarassment, if only 25% (and I think that
estimate it too high), have a problem? Whether you
know it or not, your sentiment has fueled welfare
reform, prop 209 in California, affirmative action
reform and if you don't change, perhaps the return of
slavery in the 21st Century!!
Name: Bishop Email: manning8810@asunet.alasu.edu Response:
This is another tool by the those in power to
keep the powerless in a subjugated position.
If this procedure can be administered to welfare
recipient and even the military, then tenured
professor, elected political heads,farmers
and even the President should receive urine tests.
Implementations such as Urine Test will become
widespread within the next decade so beware..
What's Next?? I can only imagine...... (The
hunt is on people.)
Name: charles Email: lplus@juno.com Response:
urine tests should not be required for welfare recipients
Name: Tanya D. Robinson Email: MaristB.kv67 Response:
Let us keep in mind that since public assistance is paid through by government from the people, fairness of qualifications must be considered.
Urine tests should be conducted on welfare recipients because the whole purpose of provided public assistance to citizens who need is to help
Him/her improve his/her quality in life and become financially strong. A welfare recipient can't do that if he/she is using drugs. I know
for a fact that there are many people who could have improved his/her quality of life if he/she was not so busy being engaged in the usage of
drugs. If the welfare recipient is not using drugs then he/she has nothing to worry about. The urine test can be an effective method for
screening out people who wrongfully use the welfare system for the wrong reasons and can make more aid available for the welfare recipients
who rightfully need it.
Name: Nnamdi Nzingha Email: Response:
It is a joke! Why is there so much scrutiny of welfare recipients? My guess is that it's easier to attack the poor, because if saving money was the true issue the goverment would be exercising greater control over the theft in defense industry and health care industry. Defense contractors and doctors steal billions each year, but you don't see the outcry about that theft If the "Welfare Queen" steals $6,000.00 a year it's a major crime. I'm sure we all know the real deal.
Name: dee Email: Response:
If we are going to do this, then we need to do so for every person receiving a governmentbenefit. How about potty checks for social security recipients. Use the money that it would cost to do urine checks to help build communities in poor neighborhoods, jobs, and decent schools.
Name: Gary Reed Email: GLCREEDS Response:
yes, I think this is need!!!! I think that over 25% of the people recieving welfare are into drug, and not using the funds for there use.
