Urine tests for welfare checks!! Alright!!

So I got this chain email today, I read it, and actually agreed with it. Its a great idea. I am in high school and I have a job, and I couldnt have stated it better myself. I just wanted to share this what you guys, so tell me what you think. The email is below:

""Like most folks in this country, 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 in my case, 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.
So, here is my Question: 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 ass - doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?""

Is that backed up by statistics, or just going on assumption? Do you know how much it actually costs to perform urine tests? That said, if it is actually cost-effective, then I would be for it.Engrish_Major

Cool idea, I'd vote for it :D Although, it would probably mean cheaper drugs for those with jobs, could be a good thing or a bad one.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Is that backed up by statistics, or just going on assumption? Do you know how much it actually costs to perform urine tests? That said, if it is actually cost-effective, then I would be for it.rawsavon

Is that backed up by statistics, or just going on assumption? Do you know how much it actually costs to perform urine tests? That said, if it is actually cost-effective, then I would be for it.Engrish_Major

i do, in Texas for probation, the state gets charged about $2.50 for the initial test and confirmation is $10 (confirmation is only required if the initial gcms comes up dirty). The person on probation pays $12 for the initial test and $50 for the confirmation (this is based on johnson county, im coming from firsthand experience between me, my lawyer and the probation officer i had) and having mandatory ua's would definitely cut down on people abusing welfare. if you ever question it, go spend some time at the welfare office and see all the people coming in there with bling obviously cracked out looking for a handout (i went to the one in Tarrant county twice, it was ridiculous, i actually saw a lexus with spinners pull up)

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Is that backed up by statistics, or just going on assumption? Do you know how much it actually costs to perform urine tests? That said, if it is actually cost-effective, then I would be for it.z4twenny

i do, in Texas for probation, the state gets charged about $2.50 for the initial test and confirmation is $10 (confirmation is only required if the initial gcms comes up dirty). The person on probation pays $12 for the initial test and $50 for the confirmation (this is based on johnson county, im coming from firsthand experience between me, my lawyer and the probation officer i had) and having mandatory ua's would definitely cut down on people abusing welfare. if you ever question it, go spend some time at the welfare office and see all the people coming in there with bling obviously cracked out looking for a handout (i went to the one in Tarrant county twice, it was ridiculous, i actually saw a lexus with spinners pull up)

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Is that backed up by statistics, or just going on assumption? Do you know how much it actually costs to perform urine tests? That said, if it is actually cost-effective, then I would be for it.z4twenny

i do, in Texas for probation, the state gets charged about $2.50 for the initial test and confirmation is $10 (confirmation is only required if the initial gcms comes up dirty). The person on probation pays $12 for the initial test and $50 for the confirmation (this is based on johnson county, im coming from firsthand experience between me, my lawyer and the probation officer i had) and having mandatory ua's would definitely cut down on people abusing welfare. if you ever question it, go spend some time at the welfare office and see all the people coming in there with bling obviously cracked out looking for a handout (i went to the one in Tarrant county twice, it was ridiculous, i actually saw a lexus with spinners pull up)

I'd rather able bodied individuals be put to work to earn the money....either they find work or the government finds work.LJS9502_basic

Good idea and I support it, but it doesn't fix the main problem. People can still cheat the system and leech off of the rest of us. They just can't do it while also being a drug addict.Rocky32189

i think this person is wrong , just wrong how bout you pass a urine test every payday then ,

it isnt every ones fault you know,

they could have been hurt in an accident and paralysed so why should they be punished for somthing they didnt do . i dont get it this world gets worst every day that goes by , congratulations you want a medal because you work etc who cares

Considering drug addicts are generally the ones that need the most help, how is this going to help?

[QUOTE="z4twenny"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Is that backed up by statistics, or just going on assumption? Do you know how much it actually costs to perform urine tests? That said, if it is actually cost-effective, then I would be for it.THE_BRUTALIZER

i do, in Texas for probation, the state gets charged about $2.50 for the initial test and confirmation is $10 (confirmation is only required if the initial gcms comes up dirty). The person on probation pays $12 for the initial test and $50 for the confirmation (this is based on johnson county, im coming from firsthand experience between me, my lawyer and the probation officer i had) and having mandatory ua's would definitely cut down on people abusing welfare. if you ever question it, go spend some time at the welfare office and see all the people coming in there with bling obviously cracked out looking for a handout (i went to the one in Tarrant county twice, it was ridiculous, i actually saw a lexus with spinners pull up)

i might not agree with you about everything, but definitely this. i also would like to say, this applies for the able bodied people who do work hard and take illegal substances (like me) if i lost my job and was told "you can't pass a pee test, you don't get support" i couldn't argue that, just like getting an actual job. as for comparing the numbers, sure we could compare costs but i can tell you without having done any of the math that it would be far more economical to give ua's.

Considering drug addicts are generally the ones that need the most help, how is this going to help?

_BlueDuck_

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Good idea and I support it, but it doesn't fix the main problem. People can still cheat the system and leech off of the rest of us. They just can't do it while also being a drug addict.THE_BRUTALIZER

It may encourage addicts to turn to crime to feed their addiction though :(

Considering drug addicts are generally the ones that need the most help, how is this going to help?

_BlueDuck_

Why is he required to pass a random urine test?

I dont get it (as always).

[QUOTE="THE_BRUTALIZER"][QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Good idea and I support it, but it doesn't fix the main problem. People can still cheat the system and leech off of the rest of us. They just can't do it while also being a drug addict.10thwonder

It may encourage addicts to turn to crime to feed their addiction though :(

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Considering drug addicts are generally the ones that need the most help, how is this going to help?

LJS9502_basic

Moneylossclearly isn't an effective deterent for drug abuse. Why not make rehab requirements or something, I feel that's a much better idea.

i think this person is wrong , just wrong how bout you pass a urine test every payday then ,

it isnt every ones fault you know,

they could have been hurt in an accident and paralysed so why should they be punished for somthing they didnt do . i dont get it this world gets worst every day that goes by , congratulations you want a medal because you work etc who cares

mariokart64fan

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Considering drug addicts are generally the ones that need the most help, how is this going to help?

_BlueDuck_

Moneylossclearly isn't an effective deterent for drug abuse. Why not make rehab requirements or something, I feel that's a much better idea.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Considering drug addicts are generally the ones that need the most help, how is this going to help?

_BlueDuck_

Moneylossclearly isn't an effective deterent for drug abuse. Why not make rehab requirements or something, I feel that's a much better idea.

[QUOTE="THE_BRUTALIZER"][QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Good idea and I support it, but it doesn't fix the main problem. People can still cheat the system and leech off of the rest of us. They just can't do it while also being a drug addict.10thwonder

It may encourage addicts to turn to crime to feed their addiction though :(

LMAO, so since they MIGHT steal something we should go ahead and give them the money instead of makin' em fight for it? dude i want you for my boss, i'm gonna need about $90,000 a year to do nothing.

Beats most? Well maybe they could use up-to-date testing, like state of the art or something. Maybe they could also do more research if they choose to do the testing. But thats a great point, I never thought there could be bypassing substances......

THE_BRUTALIZER

By most, I mean most abused substances, not the method of screening.

Drug screening isn't nearly as effective as the testing companies make it out to be. There are too many ways to get around it.

hmm if i belived in welfare i would go for it. but i dont. if you cant get off your @$$ to get a job you dont deserve to have money. now dont get me wrong if someones disabled than yea they should get their disability. but if you just dont want to work i really dont care. and dont tell me they cant find a job. they arent trying. ANYBODY can go to and get somthing.

[QUOTE="10thwonder"]

It may encourage addicts to turn to crime to feed their addiction though :(

z4twenny

LMAO, so since they MIGHT steal something we should go ahead and give them the money instead of makin' em fight for it? dude i want you for my boss, i'm gonna need about $90,000 a year to do nothing.

If you read a few posts above you'll see that I'm all for making them pass a drug screening to get their checks, I'm just saying, it could exacerbate the crime problems some cities are already dealing with.

hmm if i belived in welfare i would go for it. but i dont. if you cant get off your @$$ to get a job you dont deserve to have money. now dont get me wrong if someones disabled than yea they should get their disability. but if you just dont want to work i really dont care. and dont tell me they cant find a job. they arent trying. ANYBODY can go to and get somthing.

crazboy84

That would never pass congress, because they would lose half their voter base.

well, no offense dude, but the only reason your against it is because your a pot head......THE_BRUTALIZER

Ummm...do you know what people say about making asumptions? You make an ASS out of U and ME.

I am not a pot head, but I do have a marijuana perscription. Why? Because I'm allergic to other glaucoma treatments and I don't want to go blind. So STUFF IT!

[QUOTE="THE_BRUTALIZER"]

well, no offense dude, but the only reason your against it is because your a pot head......br0kenrabbit

Ummm...do you know what people say about making asumptions? You make an ASS out of U and ME.

I am not a pot head, but I do have a marijuana perscription. Why? Because I'm allergic to other glaucoma treatments and I don't want to go blind. So STUFF IT!

There's a whole side to my family that cheats medical care and welfare with bogus claims.

A distant cousin of mine spent 2 weeks in Basic Training, and then tripped over a duffle bag.

He gets more a month from the Army for that "back injury" than some people I know who spent 20 years in. If I could, I'd show him what a real broken back is like, right after I beat the crap out of his girlfriend, because she cheats welfare too.

[QUOTE="THE_BRUTALIZER"] Beats most? Well maybe they could use up-to-date testing, like state of the art or something. Maybe they could also do more research if they choose to do the testing. But thats a great point, I never thought there could be bypassing substances......

br0kenrabbit

By most, I mean most abused substances, not the method of screening.

Drug screening isn't nearly as effective as the testing companies make it out to be. There are too many ways to get around it.

not for the gcms there isn't. i think you've only taken dipstick tests which are actually more expensive than the very particular gcms.
companies and gov't don't use those dip sticks anymore, it's all gcms.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="THE_BRUTALIZER"]

well, no offense dude, but the only reason your against it is because your a pot head......THE_BRUTALIZER

Ummm...do you know what people say about making asumptions? You make an ASS out of U and ME.

I am not a pot head, but I do have a marijuana perscription. Why? Because I'm allergic to other glaucoma treatments and I don't want to go blind. So STUFF IT!

The thing about marijuana is that it is a very benign drug. I'm not saying that there aren't health risks but there are health risks to coffee, too. When used AS A MEDICAL DRUG under MEDICAL SUPERVISION, marijuana can be a blessing for many people. It's a sad state of affairs when the government allows the ABUSE of a drug to dictate it's medical applications.

I mean, if abuse were the sole reason to ban a drug, why are Oxycontin and opiates still on the market? Because they work.

If people stopped looking at marijuana with an historical bias, maybe we can do something useful with it. And hey, if that means ending prohibition to get these street gangs out of the distrobution picture, then so be it.

There's a whole side to my family that cheats medical care and welfare with bogus claims.

A distant cousin of mine spent 2 weeks in Basic Training, and then tripped over a duffle bag.

He gets more a month from the Army for that "back injury" than some people I know who spent 20 years in. If I could, I'd show him what a real broken back is like, right after I beat the crap out of his girlfriend, because she cheats welfare too.

-TheSecondSign-

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="THE_BRUTALIZER"] Beats most? Well maybe they could use up-to-date testing, like state of the art or something. Maybe they could also do more research if they choose to do the testing. But thats a great point, I never thought there could be bypassing substances......

z4twenny

By most, I mean most abused substances, not the method of screening.

Drug screening isn't nearly as effective as the testing companies make it out to be. There are too many ways to get around it.

not for the gcms there isn't. i think you've only taken dipstick tests which are actually more expensive than the very particular gcms.
companies and gov't don't use those dip sticks anymore, it's all gcms.

You mean gas spectrometry?

The way Certo works is that the fat in it bonds to both the drug molecules (such as THC) and your bladder walls. It's like a glue that holds the stuff in until the pepsin breaks it down.

Blood tests and hair testing is usually only done under court order.

[QUOTE="THE_BRUTALIZER"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

Ummm...do you know what people say about making asumptions? You make an ASS out of U and ME.

I am not a pot head, but I do have a marijuana perscription. Why? Because I'm allergic to other glaucoma treatments and I don't want to go blind. So STUFF IT!

br0kenrabbit

The thing about marijuana is that it is a very benign drug. I'm not saying that there aren't health risks but there are health risks to coffee, too. When used AS A MEDICAL DRUG under MEDICAL SUPERVISION, marijuana can be a blessing for many people. It's a sad state of affairs when the government allows the ABUSE of a drug to dictate it's medical applications.

I mean, if abuse were the sole reason to ban a drug, why are Oxycontin and opiates still on the market? Because they work.

If people stopped looking at marijuana with an historical bias, maybe we can do something useful with it. And hey, if that means ending prohibition to get these street gangs out of the distrobution picture, then so be it.

amen brother, i'd give you an applause emoticon if there was one. subsequently why is it that suddenly since you have a presciption you're not a pothead, you're a patient and you're no longer a drooling horrible wild eyed dope fiend, you're now a sensible person taking medication..... funny how that works....

[QUOTE="THE_BRUTALIZER"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

Ummm...do you know what people say about making asumptions? You make an ASS out of U and ME.

I am not a pot head, but I do have a marijuana perscription. Why? Because I'm allergic to other glaucoma treatments and I don't want to go blind. So STUFF IT!

br0kenrabbit

The thing about marijuana is that it is a very benign drug. I'm not saying that there aren't health risks but there are health risks to coffee, too. When used AS A MEDICAL DRUG under MEDICAL SUPERVISION, marijuana can be a blessing for many people. It's a sad state of affairs when the government allows the ABUSE of a drug to dictate it's medical applications.

I mean, if abuse were the sole reason to ban a drug, why are Oxycontin and opiates still on the market? Because they work.

If people stopped looking at marijuana with an historical bias, maybe we can do something useful with it. And hey, if that means ending prohibition to get these street gangs out of the distrobution picture, then so be it.

[QUOTE="z4twenny"]

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

By most, I mean most abused substances, not the method of screening.

Drug screening isn't nearly as effective as the testing companies make it out to be. There are too many ways to get around it.

br0kenrabbit

not for the gcms there isn't. i think you've only taken dipstick tests which are actually more expensive than the very particular gcms.
companies and gov't don't use those dip sticks anymore, it's all gcms.

You mean gas spectrometry?

The way Certo works is that the fat in it bonds to both the drug molecules (such as THC) and your bladder walls. It's like a glue that holds the stuff in until the pepsin breaks it down.

Blood tests and hair testing is usually only done under court order.

yeah gas chromatography, it tests for the metabolites that break down drugs, not the drugs themselves. also if you have a "diluted" sample, thats the same as a failed test (at least in TX) really the BEST one could hope to do is have a low enough amount of toxins in their system and then drink a little extra water to thin out the sample and have it come in under the threshhold (i think its 10 nanograms / ml iirc) but thats REALLY REALLY risking it. i wouldn't recommend this for anyone trying to scame a drug test btw.

I agree with that....maybe making it legal would help, but its important to realize why it became illegal in the first place. THE_BRUTALIZER

Let's ask the great Harry J. Anslinger why it's illegal.

"An entire family was murdered by a youthful addict in Florida. When officers arrived at the home, they found the youth staggering about in a human slaughterhouse. With an axe he had killed his father, mother, two brothers, and a sister. He seemed to be in a daze… He had no recollection of having committed the multiple crime. The officers knew him ordinarily as a sane, rather quiet young man; now he was pitifully crazed. They sought the reason. The boy said that he had been in the habit of smoking something which youthful friends called "muggles," a childish name for marijuana."

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"

"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."