Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Shared E-Mail

This came in a forwarded e-mail to me and it has a certain amount of sense and reason. Do you believe this is fair? I believe it is a viable argument.

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 backside, 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?


  1. As a social worker who has conducted my share of urine samples, I, too, say YES. Many people obtain cash aid and food stamps and do NOT look for jobs. I see this assistance as a hand up, and not a hand out. I consider myself to be open minded and compassionate, but too many people have abused this system designed to provide short term assistance. County crime labs would not have enough storage space if all people receiving aid were required to submit to random drug tests!

  2. Hmm this def. gets you thinking (who knows, maybe its cuz I'm an avid supporter for social services).. I'm prone to say yes, but I think I'd have to think about it a little more before I'm quick to answer. Maybe we should be asking if its an invasion of privacy to require a urine test for jobs (disregarding the medical field)?! Oh ethics! lol

  3. Chandra - I'm sure your line of work has exposed many areas of abuse of which some are most heartbreaking. You are open minded and compassionate and I respect your opinion on this matter. I think whoever wrote this post has a valid argument. Of course, employers must foot the bill for the random drug testing of their employees. The government would not want to pay for random testing. You would think someone could come up with some sort of test strip that would make a ribbon of color for positive testing of various drugs when saturated with urine. (Like a pregnancy test) If certain colors presented, then the person would have to be taken in for further testing. I don't know, but there needs to be a solution to some of this stuff.

    Carissa - There are too many jobs that already require random testing and I don't think any "invasion of privacy" argument will stop it. Even our church bus drivers are required by law to have random testing which the church must pay for the testing. The argument presented is should people who receive government support also be required to have random drug testing? I think the argument is fair.

  4. My privacy is invaded when I receive junk mail. My privacy is invaded when my wireless phone company keeps records of my text messages and phone usaage.
    Carissa, you'd be surprised at how frequently your privacy is invaded on a daily basis.

    By adding another factor to this argument (privacy), the central question becomes diluted. This is a valid argument, and I'm sure the refuting side can argue that protection of privacy becomes an issue.

    However, I believe privacy ends when public assistance begins. The information required to obtain public assistance is quite lengthy. If a person is generally in need of the assistance they will do anything and everything in their power to get the assistance. Unfortunately, drug addicts will do anything in their power to obtain the resources for their next fix. Would you believe that some addicts go as far as having multiple children to secure food stamps, cash aid, food stamps, AND medi-cal?! gasssssp!

    Where tax dollars are concerned, all expenditures are public record. Therefore, the proverbial term ''invasion of privacy'' just doesn't seem to work for me.

  5. I vote Yes for random urine testing, which doesn't single anyone out but makes it politically correct (oh I'm so tired of those two words!). Make them warrant their assistance. As a nation, we no longer require accountability for actions. In fact, accountability is only mentioned at election time - and in most of our church pulpits.

  6. Chandra - you have added much to this discussion and presented valid argument. I think Sis. Hopper tagged right onto your thoughts with stating there should be accountability. I believe our government should help people in need and I am a supporter of public assistance - -HOWEVER - -there is too much abuse of the system and whoever wrote the circulating e-mail presented a valid argument that could potentially stop some of the abuse. Someone made a comment which in essence said, "Our freedom is becoming our bondage." We definitely need an overhaul within our government systems and a return to God.

    Karen - see my response to Chandra.