MANDATORY URINE TEST
Like many 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 may be required to pass a random urine test, with which I have not problem.What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who are not required to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, since I have to pass a urine test 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 receive public assistance???
posted by meblogin at 8:07 PM
8 Comments:
I agree. If anyone avails themselves of any public service or facility paid for by public tax dollars, they should have to take regular urine tests.
Drive on public streets? Mandatory urine test.
Call the fire department? Mandatory urine test.
Use the library? Mandatory urine test.
Live in a house approved by city inspectors? Mandatory urine test.
Eat meat inspected by the USDA? Mandatory urine test.
FHA or VA loan to buy your house? Mandatory urine test.
Is your savings account FDIC insured? Mandatory urine test.
How about you meblogin? Do you live your life completely free from the benefits of others' taxes? If not, you're willing to take a urine test to to make sure your worthy of assitance, right?
MeB, you should feel honored! You're in Roch's sights for offering a solution that (as opposing to assigning "worthiness") requires a little personal responsiblity . . . as opposed to a total wallow in the pursuit of happiness while someone else pays the bill.
Of course, Roch COMPLETELY misses the point that you were not talking about just "any" public service . . . only the one that doles out money in order for somone to survive (food and lodging) . . . assuming they want to survive on something beside recreational drugs and/or alcohol.
The next thing he'll do is call you a "liar".
Congratulations!
Hi Roch,
As always...good to hear from you.
I pay taxes for public streets, fire department service, library, city taxes to cover inspectors, fed taxes meat inspections and fdic. My house is not FHA or VA though I pay taxes to help support them. Heck...sometimes I feel like I will have to go to the bank to borrow the money to pay the taxes...hmmm...if I did I would be helping the financial sector that might have need in the next few months with the subprime problems.
I don't mind taking a regular urine test and if I fail then even though I pay taxes for all these services...sigh...I guess I could pay more for failure.
I won't fail this test... :)
If you like, please feel free to comment on the actual content of the post or on the other hand...perhaps you would fail this test. I hope not.
I think it is cool that you enjoy missing the point all the time on purpose. It is on purpose..right?
Hi Doc,
Roch is just him. I suspect he is a good guy that enjoys the challenges of every day life or is it that everyday life challenges him? :)
There have been a few times where I have noted that he changes his position due to the exchange of information. Some don't and I find them to be a waste of time.
I am glad that he hosts 101 as it gets the word out for many blogs....and he hangs out with a favorite nephew or at least I think he does. If not...all bets are off and he simply a bunch of confused keystrokes (big grin)
I didn't miss your point, meblogin. I was hoping that you would be capable of a little abstract thinking that, if followed, would expand upon your point to show its folly.
We all reap benefits of one sort or another from tax-funded facilities and services and it is unfairly prejudicial to say that recipients of certain benefits should be subjected to drug tests while recepients of other benefits should not.
The point I was hoping you'd follow is made moot however by your willingness to submit to a drug test to reap the services of government that you accept. Your willingness to do so reveals a more troubling problem, a disregard for individual privacy and an acceptance of the worst of government intrusion upon the individual. That is so far out of the bounds of American liberties that I won't even argue. I'll just rest easy knowing that such a fringe position would be soundly rejected by a vast majority of people of all political persuasions.
Roch, I think a strong argument can be made that one's "right" to "privacy" stops when one asks for public funds to support or subsidize one's individual lifestyle. That's far from being "un-fairly prejudicial" or "an intrusion". It's asking that one be willing to demonstrate personal responsibility.
The "certain (individual) benefits" MeB was talking about (paid for by tax dollars) are designated for specific, very basic needs. A drug test therefore does not seem unreasonable to prove that one is using those benefits for the reasons intended . . . rather than the pursuit of "liberties" that are, in fact, illegal.
Now, you can pursue those "liberites" all you want (as long as you don't get caught) - provided you're not asking the public to pay for it.
MeB, and I, and many others in this blogopshere are indeed capable of "abstract thought". I wish you could form a response in your arguments that did not pre-suppose that the rest of us are stupid.
Hi Roch,
...yawn...
Hi Doc,
With a compliment intended I am hopeful that Roch has the capacity for simple abstract thought. I feel sure he is.
If he does not...then he will continue with childlike debate tactics for years to come.
If he is capable of higher thought then I and hopefully others look forward to his thoughtful posts.
As always thank you for your ideas and comments.
me
PS...Roch, no one comes to work in my company without a urine test and this is a rule that I created so as to protect others.
Post a Comment
<< Home