| Comments |
Date Submitted |
Posted by |
| So I've been seeing this particular statement all over the internet and through forwarded text messages and I have to say that I completely concur with the view point of the actual author themselves whoever they may be. Being I am a civilian of a more poor nature I don't like what little money I make to be given to those who squander it. I do understand those who are in a helpless situation and need it to survive, but how did people manage before welfare even came into affect? I can see the issue being contested by ACLU saying that such actions is an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional... to that my remark : Isn't the Patriot Act just that? Something which I might add is an act that we the people didn't even vote on? From my understanding, the PA is more invassive than a simple drug screening... but what do I know. I support the motion that welfare should be a more controlled program and ultimately eliminated. Our government is just one big nonsensicle dictatorship in disguise.. but that's an entirely different issue.
|
Wednesday 24th September 2008 12:01:18 PM |
senorabovine
 |
I agree. If they have to be on assistance and they can afford drugs they shouldn't be given anything. Most of us that are in the work force have to submit to drug tests as well. If I had a positive test I'd be fired, and I don't have a state or federal job. Assistance is for those who need it and to help them get on their feet. There are too many people abusing that privlage to beguin with and the thought of someone sitting on their butt doing drugs while us tax payers pay for it really upsets me. |
Thursday 17th May 2007 11:06:31 AM |
lisa77
|
I agree. If you are going to get assistance, it for one should be for only a limited time and you should have to submit to a drug screening before and during getting assistance. And it should be a hair folicle test because the accuracy is better and can go back farther to find drug abuse. It may cost the tax payers more, but if people are going to freeload off the government/tax payers and get paid to do nothing then it should be with the strictest rules. If they can afford to buy drugs then they shouldn't be on welfare! |
Tuesday 08th May 2007 11:19:51 AM |
weschristie04
|
