Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Urine Test » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused   BadOne  
Good Luck   More Crap   Wall Bang   Were Up   Were Down    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
Lockman  - posted
THE JOB - URINE TEST

(I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)

I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB... SO I AGREE 100%

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 A$$,

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?

Maybe we'd save some taxes if this was instituted.
 
glassman  - posted
it would be unconstitutional...

you have a contract with your employer.
you have no constitutional rights within the scope of that contract.


your employer is your dictator, you can quit your job.

as it is? demanding urinalysis by the govt shouldn't be allowed under any circumstnces. the 5th amendment forbids it:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

peeing in a bottle is testimony.

confiscating "drug money" and cars and boats etc is also unconstitutional, but nobody raises enough hell about it..

the medical marijuana laws in CA were tested by the Supreme Court and they decided somebody MIGHT transport the medical marijuana across a state line so CA's law was stricken down.. well, not stricken down exaclty:


The ruling does not overturn laws in California and 10 other states, mostly in the West, that permit medical use of marijuana. In 2003, Maryland reduced the maximum fine for medical users of less than an ounce of the drug to $100.

But the ruling does mean that those who try to use marijuana as a medical treatment risk legal action by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration or other federal agencies and that the state laws provide no defense.

Writing for the court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the case was "troubling" because of users' claims that they needed marijuana to alleviate physical pain and suffering. But he concluded that the court had no choice but to uphold Congress's "firmly established" power to regulate "purely local activities . . . that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060600564. html
crazy chit huh?
 
Lockman  - posted
Public Assistance like welfare is not a right, it's a gift from every taxpayer. Your not entitled to welfare, why not sign a contract to get it? If you don't want to pee then be free, but without a check from Uncle Sam.
 
glassman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lockman:
Public Assistance like welfare is not a right, it's a gift from every taxpayer. Your not entitled to welfare, why not sign a contract to get it? If you don't want to pee then be free, but without a check from Uncle Sam.

i'm not defending it, but you have to think about it like this:

right now? nobody raises hell about the way the govt "enforces" drug laws much.

if they began doing non-stop testing? the chit would hit the fan...

that's same reason Wall St did NOT want privatised social security. They would be called before congress every time the market dropped 2%
 
IWISHIHAD  - posted
How about if all Middle Class American's take urine tests and if they do not pass they do not pay any taxes.

Also give these tests to the soldiers that are heading on their second and third tours of Iraq and if they do not pass they do not go, no penalties to them if they do not pass.

Then give these same tests to all elected officals at random and if they show anything other than small amounts of alcohol or drugs in their urine they are out and they forfeit all their pay.(including drugs like vicodin in unusual amounts)

Upper 1% can then make up the difference in taxes.

This should give us lots of extra spending money to help all sorts of citizens.
 
glassman  - posted
and every college kid...

especially the frats...

they are usually the main supplier on every campus
 
bdgee  - posted
Mayhaps yaw'll orter worry 'bout someone using hit to congur up a voodoo doll. Hitt'll wurk ever bit as gud as ya finger nail clippins and ya'll'll never know whose a pokin that thar dol and makin your butt smart lack the dikkins.
 
Relentless.  - posted
A two litre of Mountain Dew followed by a decent amount of water will clean you out if you have an hour's warning.
If not just complain that you can't go and drink as much water as you can, then give them the last bit of the stream.. It will be the cleanest.
 
IMAKEMONEY  - posted
LOL,R.D [BadOne]
 
IWISHIHAD  - posted
Relentless, for most of the young guys that will work but for the older guys that will probably put them in the hospital or grunting in the restroom. They might have to wait all day for the last bit of their stream. [Wall Bang]
 
tmanfromtexas  - posted
I like the idea of a urine test for persons to receive govt. aid. Why not? Its no different then being employed. You can choose to not take a urine test as an employee and you then can choose where you will be working next. If you want welfare take a urine test. If you dont want to do the test, you dont get welfare. That then would be the person's choice. If they choose to take the test then its their choice to take it, no 5th amendment issue there. If they fail then they lose their benefits. The only change would be a requirement to be drug and alcohol free to be on welfare. Just my two cents. TMAN...
 
glassman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by tmanfromtexas:
I like the idea of a urine test for persons to receive govt. aid. Why not? Its no different then being employed. You can choose to not take a urine test as an employee and you then can choose where you will be working next. If you want welfare take a urine test. If you dont want to do the test, you dont get welfare. That then would be the person's choice. If they choose to take the test then its their choice to take it, no 5th amendment issue there. If they fail then they lose their benefits. The only change would be a requirement to be drug and alcohol free to be on welfare. Just my two cents. TMAN...

why stop there?
and all farmers getting subsidies? and to get your tax refund? how about we start with senators and congresspersons? many civil servants have to, all of the military does....

oh yeah, and before you vote..

to get a drivers license...

to get a passport...

it's still unconstitutional.

PS the last bill i saw for a broad spectrum tox screen urinalysis was 600$...

that would cost about half what welfare recipients get each month. or do you just wanna do it once a year?
 
tmanfromtexas  - posted
Lets just cut the welfare out then. Give a person, who needs a little help to get back on their feet, lets say 3 months, then cut it off. I bet 90% of the folks on welfare that are able to work would somehow find a way to get a job.

A 10 panel test that is common for job seekers is about 30 bucks.

You pay for a passport, its not welfare=free

You pay for your drivers license, its not welfare=free

Farmers provide a product that you and I eat, they are subsidized but they produce, its not welfare=free

It is a constitutional right to vote, people paid with their lives for that, its not welfare=free.

When you get something free from the government then you should do something, to prove that you deserve it. Its welfare=free

TMAN
 
IWISHIHAD  - posted
quote:
_________________________________________________

Originally posted by Glassman:

"PS the last bill i saw for a broad spectrum tox screen urinalysis was 600$"...

_________________________________________________

Add some more cost for the processing and files that would need to be kept for this test and i bet the cost per test would be over $1000.

But i am sure there would be many groups that would love to be on the inside to get this business if they ever started a test like this.

It would be kind of like the "Independent" medical exams that are required by the VA and SS in most disability cases. Some nice money for a very select group of indivuals for a test that is really a joke but costly.
 
IWISHIHAD  - posted
When we talk about more ways to restrict what people get in these welfare and other gov. systems we have to look at the history of our nation and where many of its programs have gone over the years.

Is welfare really free as such to all those that get it?

Would a urine test really fix the system and the small amount of abuse or would it end up costing us much more in the long run?

Are the disability and welfare systems really that abused by indivuals or are they really more abused by the government and the people allowed by the government to benefit from the misuse.

Some how i think it is much easier to look at the indivuals that are receiving these benefits and say lets get them rather than look at the real problem and try and correct it. I think the frustration that many feel with our government and its abuse of these systems is much harder to accept, so it's easier to blame the indivual.

I do see what you are talking about when you discuss the ones that have never worked and are constantly on drugs and alcohol. But if these systems were corrected to what they were originally there to do, then that percentage of abusing people would make little differance. What we saved in the corrections would off set any abuse by indivuals with lots of money left over.

The systems aren't bad. It's that to many people have made to much money by making sure we reorganize these systems to prevent the small percentage of abuse. We have gotten away from the laws that were set up for these systems and there puposes.

The gov. has also made sure that some of this money that has been raised over the years could be used elsewhere which is destroying the systems.
 
glassman  - posted

Farmers provide a product that you and I eat, they are subsidized but they produce, its not welfare=free


don't get me wrong, i'm all for farmers.

but i think there's alot of misconceptions about how subsidies work.

they go to mostly corporate farms. they go to the biggest farms and they are not in the thousands of dollars per year...
they are not "helping" pay the bills in hard times. they are literally CEO paychecks. that's welfare IMO.
those red-voting states get most of the farm subsidies AND most of the welfare. except CA and MI( blue states).

as a matter of fact if you look at the list of unemployment it's worse primarily in red states.

now why would there be such a tight correlation to welfare and farming?


lots of people think of inner cities and welfare, but that's only because that's all they see. they don't see all the old sharecroppers shacks spread all over the south, or the trailer parks hidden away at the edge of town.

According to the Veterans Administration nearly 200 thousand Veterans are homeless today. Nearly twice that number will be homeless for some time during the coming year, and if the economic situation gets much worse, that number will doubtless grow. We are housing about 135 thousand troops in Iraq. There is no coordinated plan to deal with the problems of homeless veterans.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977221295&grpId=3659174697 241980&nav=Groupspace


anybody living on welfare is living a substandard existance that needs HELP. if you think you've got a better plan to help them get back on their feet? let US all know about it. we need the help.

in the land of milk and honey you still must put them on the table


i live in an area where the farms stretch literally as far as the eye can see. it's flat. not like Nebraska or Oklahoma. it's flat like a lake.

the farmers do very well.

the poor people here will not have jobs, even if you cut off their welfare. there aren't any. we have more pawnshops and check cashing stores than we do fast food joints.

Haley Barbour bragged on his re-inagural speech the other night about how MS has more jobs than ever before. but we still have very high unemployment rates.

44 CALIFORNIA 5.6
44 OHIO 5.6
46 ARKANSAS 5.7
46 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 5.7
48 SOUTH CAROLINA 5.9
49 MISSISSIPPI 6.3
50 ALASKA 6.4
51 MICHIGAN 7.4

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/


i'd be willing to bet that if you pulled farm subsidies? you'd find farmers moving to more profitable crops, sorta like the ones in Afghanistan.
 
IWISHIHAD  - posted
Taking tests to get welfare is a tough question for me.

I look at the situations that many people have been thrust into whether by birth or other reasons and i wonder if i could stay off of drugs and alcohol if i were in their situation.

It has to be tough for many that have been born into it and really never have much of a chance of getting a better job other than at a fast food establishment.

We can cite examples of people that have made it big in sports and a few others but not to many escape from that level of poverty.

It is sad that are system does not make it easier to get ahead in this day in age but it really does not. It's getting harder and harder to get into the front door for these better paying jobs without a 4 year degree and some inside connections. As the economy fails more and more this will only get worst and many more will end up on aid.
 
Upside  - posted
I say we should have to take one before posting on Allstocks. On second thought, bad idea. What fun would this place be if everyone was clean and sober when they posted?
 
IWISHIHAD  - posted
Might get rather boring.
 
bdgee  - posted
Nothing to worry about. With this collection of nuts and fruits, we can get mucho wild notions in perfect sobriety.
 
glassman  - posted
i'm as sober as a judge...

Judge Roy Bean [Big Grin]
 
bdgee  - posted
Like I said, "With this collection of nuts and fruits, we can get mucho wild notions in perfect sobriety."
 



Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share