antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
finalllllllllllllly
Kentucky to Pass Law on Drug Testing for Welfare Recipeints. Thoughts.
- 6,241
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
Kentucky state Rep. Lonnie Napier (R-Lancaster) has introduced a billthat would enforce random drug testing for all adult Kentuckiansreceiving welfare, food stamps or Medicaid, which he told HuffPostwould "get people off drugs" and save money for the state.
That's one of the points they make in the article.
- 36,531
- 11,259
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
"A decade ago, Michigan implemented mandatory testing in three welfare offices. Out of 258 new and continuing applicants tested, 21 tested positive for illicit substances. All but three of these women tested positive for marijuana only. In light of such experiences, few states have chosen to pursue similar efforts," said Harold Pollack, the Helen Ross Professor of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago.
How about these !#$#!%%% just try to create legislation and admit they think all black people are criminals instead of giving a low-key nod to a stereotype they created, and when they found an instance of that stereotype in an actuality they use it as justification to apply it to everyone.....
How about these !#$#!%%% just try to create legislation and admit they think all black people are criminals instead of giving a low-key nod to a stereotype they created, and when they found an instance of that stereotype in an actuality they use it as justification to apply it to everyone.....
lobotomybeats
Supporter
- 9,182
- 18,481
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
This will be a perfect law for the children of these begging drug-users. Screw those little bastards and their emaciated little arms reaching for handouts. If momma smokes pot, screw the little kids!
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
It's just going to increase money spent on welfare by adding the price of doing the drug test.
But i guess lobbying drug testing companies won't mind the extra income.
But i guess lobbying drug testing companies won't mind the extra income.
The_Isomotion31
formerly thewindscar31
- 5,297
- 829
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
I'd say when they first apply and at re-newal. (Assuming you have to re-new your claim?)
- 31,468
- 1,915
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
There was a figure generated estimating how much it would cost to put into effect. Its definately not cheap.
- 516
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
100% for it.
Even though the legislation in Michigan may have only found 21 of 258 randomly tested had drugs in there system, that's 21 people who wouldn't get tax dollars.
Look, I understand drugs are addicting, but let's be real here there are way to many people who shouldn't be receiving benefits. If you are truly addicted and are in need of welfare assistance this legislation will give you the opportunity to get clean. Either you get clean, or you try too, or you starve.
There is no reason we should be handing out checks to people who don't want to help themselves. This isn't a race issue, although many of you want to believe it. Yes, it just so happens that many African Americans and Hispanics are in need of public assistance, but that's not the problem here. This legislation is not saying we will cut off your benefits. The bill says we will cut of your benefits if you are participating in illegal activity that most likely hinders your ability to get a job, to work at a job or to care for yourself or your family.
If you are out spending money on weed, coke or crack, then why should my dollars go to help you, when I myself don't take part in those activities?
If you got kids to feed, screw it. Then put down the drugs and become a parent.
It's not racial. This goes for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, whatever.
And please, don't bring up the fact that African Americas are the main targets of this. If they are, which they aren't but if they are, isn't this something that will help the African American community. If you are receiving welfare and you have nothing to hide, you won't be affected. If you smoke weed or snort coke and receive assistance, then you, regardless of skin color are stupid.
Even though the legislation in Michigan may have only found 21 of 258 randomly tested had drugs in there system, that's 21 people who wouldn't get tax dollars.
Look, I understand drugs are addicting, but let's be real here there are way to many people who shouldn't be receiving benefits. If you are truly addicted and are in need of welfare assistance this legislation will give you the opportunity to get clean. Either you get clean, or you try too, or you starve.
There is no reason we should be handing out checks to people who don't want to help themselves. This isn't a race issue, although many of you want to believe it. Yes, it just so happens that many African Americans and Hispanics are in need of public assistance, but that's not the problem here. This legislation is not saying we will cut off your benefits. The bill says we will cut of your benefits if you are participating in illegal activity that most likely hinders your ability to get a job, to work at a job or to care for yourself or your family.
If you are out spending money on weed, coke or crack, then why should my dollars go to help you, when I myself don't take part in those activities?
If you got kids to feed, screw it. Then put down the drugs and become a parent.
It's not racial. This goes for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, whatever.
And please, don't bring up the fact that African Americas are the main targets of this. If they are, which they aren't but if they are, isn't this something that will help the African American community. If you are receiving welfare and you have nothing to hide, you won't be affected. If you smoke weed or snort coke and receive assistance, then you, regardless of skin color are stupid.
- 3,039
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
This is a ploy on Kentucky's part.
They just so happen to be one of the most anti-marijuana states in the union. And they have a huge problem with finding growers. I'm sure this will become a part of their operation to completely rid the state of weed, which defeats the purpose of saving them money because they waste millions on the "war on drugs" each year.
That being said, I'm a fan of the legislation...kind of. I'll wait to see how it's actually administered to say whether or not I think it's a good choice.
They just so happen to be one of the most anti-marijuana states in the union. And they have a huge problem with finding growers. I'm sure this will become a part of their operation to completely rid the state of weed, which defeats the purpose of saving them money because they waste millions on the "war on drugs" each year.
That being said, I'm a fan of the legislation...kind of. I'll wait to see how it's actually administered to say whether or not I think it's a good choice.
- 6,247
- 18
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
so are you suggesting that every one that is on Welfare is Black?
seems like it to me.
- 3,531
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2010
OOOOooooOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOoooooh..... she told you!
- 11,525
- 28
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
I'm for it.
I dont see the problem.
I dont see the problem.
- 9,606
- 13,357
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
FINNNNAALLLYY
- 516
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
This is the problem, and it's hard to say this but: As a person, I'm not responsible for any children but my own. If children are starving, of course I will help them and give them as much food or money for food as possible, I think any moral, warm hearted person is like this.
But this legislation is supposed to stop parents from receiving money who are not willing to help themselves. If they have children they shouldn't be doing drugs. If they can't even put food on the table for there children then what the hell are they doing going to the dealer on the corner for every morning, afternoon and night? This is supposed to get parents to make the right choice, get off the drugs and become a parent. It's not saying we are ending welfare, it's saying you won't get benefits if you can't control yourself for the greater good of your children.
- 6,241
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
Shush Rilla
- 528
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
Uh Oh...This honestly may not be a bad thing, but it must be done in an equal manner.
Like dirty said, Test them when they 1st apply, & then introduce the random drug tests from then on.
but good lawd...I know a lot of folks who are about to lose that EBT card if this becomes statewide
Like dirty said, Test them when they 1st apply, & then introduce the random drug tests from then on.
but good lawd...I know a lot of folks who are about to lose that EBT card if this becomes statewide
budweiser
Banned
- 2,123
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
It's called the "soft racism of the Left".
Now Essential will come in and tell us all his friends are black, he works in a black neighborhood and that he volunteers with black school children. Yet he seems more hung up on race than anybody on this board, save Nat Turner (Meth have mercy on his soul).
- 516
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
Shush RillaAll I'm getting at is I didn't pull that notion out of thin air. Of course that's not the *real* point, regardless of what the article says, but it is mentioned numerous times in the article to give it a more 'humanitarian' feel to it on some "Oh we want to help the people get off drugs" steeze when in reality they just don't want to spend money on them.
The government shouldn't have to spend money on them.
Let me ask you a question. If you and me are both in school and there is a huge test in one week. You spend your whole week studying, putting off going out to parties and things of that nature so you will help yourself get a better grade. Me on the other hand would rather go out drinking the weekend before the exam, putting of studying and saying screw it, I don't care.
Are you going to come up to me and offer to help me? Would you waste your resources trying to help me, when you could continue helping yourself? Are you going to feel bad for me that I failed the test? Why should you offer to help me when I don't want to help myself?
This is the same issue. The legislation is saying we dont mind giving assistance and helping if people want it and are willing to work for it, but why are we helping others who don't give a damn about themsevles and continue living a lifestyle that is only hindering their ability to provide food, shelter, etc.
- 16,481
- 2,554
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
good, there needs to be stricter laws with government handouts, my friends mother (white) was asked for the title to her $1000 dollar car to ensure that she was not trying to cheat the government while the african american women with 24's on her brand new dodge durango wasn't asked about anything
- 6,241
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
Originally Posted by PoloLax
Shush RillaAll I'm getting at is I didn't pull that notion out of thin air. Of course that's not the *real* point, regardless of what the article says, but it is mentioned numerous times in the article to give it a more 'humanitarian' feel to it on some "Oh we want to help the people get off drugs" steeze when in reality they just don't want to spend money on them.
The government shouldn't have to spend money on them.
Let me ask you a question. If you and me are both in school and there is a huge test in one week. You spend your whole week studying, putting off going out to parties and things of that nature so you will help yourself get a better grade. Me on the other hand would rather go out drinking the weekend before the exam, putting of studying and saying screw it, I don't care.
Are you going to come up to me and offer to help me? Would you waste your resources trying to help me, when you could continue helping yourself? Are you going to feel bad for me that I failed the test? Why should you offer to help me when I don't want to help myself?
This is the same issue. The legislation is saying we dont mind giving assistance and helping if people want it and are willing to work for it, but why are we helping others who don't give a damn about themsevles and continue living a lifestyle that is only hindering their ability to provide food, shelter, etc.
I'm not denying any of that, or saying this legislation is a bad idea. I just don't think it's going to be a huge deterrent for people
- 516
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
Then they won't get assistance, simple as that. What's more imporant food or drugs? If they pick drugs, let 'em do it with their own money. When they run out, let them face the consequences.
- 4,819
- 1,049
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
So what are you trying to say?
I agree wth this law 100% It should be mandatory everywhere.
- 3,531
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2010
OOOOooooOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOoooooh..... you told me!Originally Posted by Nawth21
Shush RillaAll I'm getting at is I didn't pull that notion out of thin air. Of course that's not the *real* point, regardless of what the article says, but it is mentioned numerous times in the article to give it a more 'humanitarian' feel to it on some "Oh we want to help the people get off drugs" steeze when in reality they just don't want to spend money on them.
- 1,286
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
I'm fine with this. The whole welfare system needs to be redone or better yet stopped completely.
- 2,649
- 512
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
Hush, child.