Tuesday, March 23, 2010

To Pee Or Not To Pee ?

I received the following in an email today and thought I'd pass it along. It's funny but actually kind of true and makes you think.

     Like most folks in this country I have a job.
                                I work, they pay me.
I pay my taxes; 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 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 BUTT--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?

I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!

Pass this along if you agree.
Hope you all will pass it along, though.
     Something has to change in this country - AND SOON!
P.S. Just a thought, all politicians
should have to pass a urine test too!


  1. ah, yeah. this would make too much sense, however, so it will never happen.

  2. Here's an idea: community service hours for a welfare check. Learn a skill. Give back. Work for it.

  3. Not a bad post you make sense there and I agree, we all need to thank Kevin Sorbo for bringing this to our attention. And you too of course. Thank You!

  4. If only it were that easy. Are you talking addiction (a disease) or the welfare state (a mess) because think of it: Employers want to know what's in your body before they hire you. That's an individual decision they make, not obligatory. But a government doing it? Esp THIS one!? Welfare is a federal institution meant to be temporary in FDR's day - but it's out of hand. Still, would YOU want this government or any other to have the right to know what's in YOUR body? To know if you've had a few beers after work? It's different with work, that's a personal choice your employer makes. But a true democracy would never insist, demand and force people to do ANY thing, esp piss in a cup. What comes next, microchip implants? So how many civil liberties have we already given up while sleeping? How many more will we lose by having such a bias against people who don't want to carry their share? We're human, some of us are lazy idiots, leeching off honest people. Does that mean we should allow BIG GOV'MT to come in and FORCE everyone to make their private life public? I think we can fix this on our own, thanks anyway Uncle Sam.

  5. If these people are sitting on their lazy butts collecting welfare to supply their DRUG HABIT, then I am all for the government making them take a drug test in order to get the check that MY TAX DOLLARS are PAYING FOR!!!!!! I don't care if it is a disease, even alcohol. Throw their butts in rehab to clean up their act, otherwise, no more welfare check. That's harse, but then so is my trying to work and pay my bills and taxes, while someone else gets free rent, healthcare and food!!!!

  6. I like the concept but ...someone is not thinking this through. Send the following back to your source.

    Consider these what-if scenarios:

    If the rule is applied, who's going to pay for the tests? (Taxpayers)

    If we require them to go pee, who is responsible for getting them to the collection office? What about the handicapped or those that cannot drive or have no funds to get transportation?

    In sates where some substances are legal, is a positive result subject to state law or to federal law? (Taxpayers will have to update the program requirements to keep up with changes to law?)

    If a positive test and no welfare check is provided, how likely is that person to commit a crime to get by? (More likely, causing a greater and very unpredictable public burden)

    If they do not commit a crime and instead go hungry, homeless or sick, where do we think their basic existence needs will come from? (Result: increased load on shelters, food kitchens, hospitals)

    If a positive test, do they never get a check again or do we provide them a program to get "clean"? (Result: Rehab centers get excess load and program monitoring is now required for each individual by a bureaucracy at taxpayer expense.)

    Alcohol is a banned substance at work too. You can't show up to work with that in your system either. Alcohol is more readily accessible to spend money on, and more widely consumed in the welfare group. (What resistance do you think the beverage lobbyists will provide to the lawmakers concerning this law?)

    The better and more predictable solution with less taxpayer burden is to leave those that do drugs on welfare to stay on the system provide for themselves and let Darwin do the job of elimination.


Looking forward to your comments but please remember they will be seen by all.