If only. :hs:


Got this in an email.

THE JOB - URINE TEST

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 BUTT, 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?

 

Sounds like a plan. I don't personally have to take one, but I could see it being a worthwhile thing to get a welfare check h:

 

.

 

all drugs?

 

The expense would be astronomical.

 

I'd actually bet that the $ not given out to those who fail would not only make the government money, but also pay for the testing.

 

If you're looking at millions of tests done monthly, I highly doubt that.

 

I guess it would depend on the frequency and the amount of people tested.

 

fine, then charge them a urine processing fee...

 

I think testing once would be completely pointless.

1.) It's not that hard to fudge a drug test.
2.) It's not that hard to get clean for a month, take the test, then pick up the habit again.
3.) Unlike employment, where your employer tends to have direct contact with you on a daily basis and can monitor for signs of drug use, welfare recipients don't encounter case workers on a regular basis.


Regular drug testing would be essential to make the concept of drug testing for government handouts valid, and doing so would cost a fortune.