urine test at work

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? 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 ASS, 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? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . . . Something has to change in this country -- and soon

MAKES MORE THAN ENOUGH SENSE TO ME.

JC?

FRED?

A1?

if the use of drugs kept people from being productive workers, we would be hard pressed to field a productive work force in any industry. i am opposed to mandatory drug testing for anyone except those who are under court order due to criminal violations involving drugs. i am also in favor of ending the ridiculously expensive and totally ineffective "war on drugs" and i favor the legalization of drugs. i oppose giving welfare to large corporations and those who already make far above the average american income. like the vast majority of americans i favor helping poor people. i am also in favor of work requirements to receive that assistance, but i oppose the gov't meddling in people's personal lives.

jc wrote:

if the use of drugs kept people from being productive workers, we would be hard pressed to field a productive work force in any industry. i am opposed to mandatory drug testing for anyone except those who are under court order due to criminal violations involving drugs. i am also in favor of ending the ridiculously expensive and totally ineffective "war on drugs" and i favor the legalization of drugs. i oppose giving welfare to large corporations and those who already make far above the average american income. like the vast majority of americans i favor helping poor people. i am also in favor of work requirements to receive that assistance, but i oppose the gov't meddling in people's personal lives.

Let me get this right, you want to legalize crack cocaine, heroin, powdered cocaine, lsd, meth, weed, and basicly any other recreational drug of choice? Weed we could probably agree on, but drugs in general I have a problem with.

Re: urine test at work

stoney wrote:

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? 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 ASS, 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? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . . . Something has to change in this country -- and soon MAKES MORE THAN ENOUGH SENSE TO ME. JC? FRED? A1?

I just tested mine and it still taste the same as it did last month!

"Groper Passes!!!!"

jc, should our government give money to those poor people so they can buy the legal drugs?

mctopeka wrote:

jc wrote: if the use of drugs kept people from being productive workers, we would be hard pressed to field a productive work force in any industry. i am opposed to mandatory drug testing for anyone except those who are under court order due to criminal violations involving drugs. i am also in favor of ending the ridiculously expensive and totally ineffective "war on drugs" and i favor the legalization of drugs. i oppose giving welfare to large corporations and those who already make far above the average american income. like the vast majority of americans i favor helping poor people. i am also in favor of work requirements to receive that assistance, but i oppose the gov't meddling in people's personal lives. Let me get this right, you want to legalize crack cocaine, heroin, powdered cocaine, lsd, meth, weed, and basicly any other recreational drug of choice? Weed we could probably agree on, but drugs in general I have a problem with.

yes

fred wrote:

jc, should our government give money to those poor people so they can buy the legal drugs?

no

mctopeka wrote:

jc wrote: if the use of drugs kept people from being productive workers, we would be hard pressed to field a productive work force in any industry. i am opposed to mandatory drug testing for anyone except those who are under court order due to criminal violations involving drugs. i am also in favor of ending the ridiculously expensive and totally ineffective "war on drugs" and i favor the legalization of drugs. i oppose giving welfare to large corporations and those who already make far above the average american income. like the vast majority of americans i favor helping poor people. i am also in favor of work requirements to receive that assistance, but i oppose the gov't meddling in people's personal lives. Let me get this right, you want to legalize crack cocaine, heroin, powdered cocaine, lsd, meth, weed, and basicly any other recreational drug of choice? Weed we could probably agree on, but drugs in general I have a problem with.

if they legalize them i say tax the hell out of them, think of the revenue that could generate.

Then all the corner dealers would have to get a legit job, pay income tax, social security and possibly have health care, get off of welfare.

gametime wrote:

mctopeka wrote: jc wrote: if the use of drugs kept people from being productive workers, we would be hard pressed to field a productive work force in any industry. i am opposed to mandatory drug testing for anyone except those who are under court order due to criminal violations involving drugs. i am also in favor of ending the ridiculously expensive and totally ineffective "war on drugs" and i favor the legalization of drugs. i oppose giving welfare to large corporations and those who already make far above the average american income. like the vast majority of americans i favor helping poor people. i am also in favor of work requirements to receive that assistance, but i oppose the gov't meddling in people's personal lives. Let me get this right, you want to legalize crack cocaine, heroin, powdered cocaine, lsd, meth, weed, and basicly any other recreational drug of choice? Weed we could probably agree on, but drugs in general I have a problem with. if they legalize them i say tax the hell out of them, think of the revenue that could generate.

I would rather them go with the 15% flat tax with no deductions to raise the tax revenue streams. It will cost more to legalize drugs than to fight it.

gametime wrote:

mctopeka wrote: jc wrote: if the use of drugs kept people from being productive workers, we would be hard pressed to field a productive work force in any industry. i am opposed to mandatory drug testing for anyone except those who are under court order due to criminal violations involving drugs. i am also in favor of ending the ridiculously expensive and totally ineffective "war on drugs" and i favor the legalization of drugs. i oppose giving welfare to large corporations and those who already make far above the average american income. like the vast majority of americans i favor helping poor people. i am also in favor of work requirements to receive that assistance, but i oppose the gov't meddling in people's personal lives. Let me get this right, you want to legalize crack cocaine, heroin, powdered cocaine, lsd, meth, weed, and basicly any other recreational drug of choice? Weed we could probably agree on, but drugs in general I have a problem with. if they legalize them i say tax the hell out of them, think of the revenue that could generate.

anyone who wants drugs can get them. the only people who benefit from drugs being illegal are drug dealers and the gov't agencies and employees who who get paid by the "war on drugs" even as they fail to prevent drugs from being sold and used.

think some of you are smokin crack now

"if they legalize them i say tax the hell out of them, think of the revenue that could generate."



Spoken like a true retard.

if we are really concerned about the cost to society of substance abuse, we should make the ones that are most costly illegal. if we are just moralizing and pretending that "our" drugs are somehow better than "their" drugs, then we should legalize all of them and let the free market take care of it. what we shouldn't do, though, is be hypocrites.

OTTAWA, ON, April 26, 2006 – A study released today describes substance abuse as a significant burden on the Canadian economy in terms of both its direct impact on health care and criminal justice costs, and its indirect toll on productivity resulting from disability and premature death. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA), Canada’s national addictions agency, estimates the total annual cost of substance abuse in Canada to be $39.8 billion (based on 2002 data), which represents a cost of $1,267 to each individual Canadian.
The study reveals that
• Legal substances (tobacco and alcohol) account for almost 80% of the total cost of substance abuse (79.3%); illegal drugs make up the remaining 20.7%;
• Tobacco imposes the greatest cost at $17 billion (42.7%);
• Alcohol accounts for $14.6 billion (36.6%); and
• Illegal drugs cost $8.2 billion (20.7%).

stoney wrote:

think some of you are smokin crack now

i wish i was smoking crack when i read some of this dopey stuff.

Re: urine test at work

stoney wrote:

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? 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 ASS, 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? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . . . Something has to change in this country -- and soon MAKES MORE THAN ENOUGH SENSE TO ME. JC? FRED? A1?

I am going to respectfully disagree for two reasons.

1. What if it is a single mother with a kid. The single mom doesn't want to give up her kid, nor does she want to give up her drugs. She doesn't get her check and then the kid goes hungry. She has a choice, THE KID DOES NOT!

2. Most people in recovery say that they couldn't quit until they hit bottom. I say let people hit bottom then get them into treatment or AA. Taking away their check is only going to slow down the process.

jc, the study you cite probably doesn't take into account that smokers and drinkers die younger. So there is a huge savings in social security.

fred wrote:

jc, the study you cite probably doesn't take into account that smokers and drinkers die younger. So there is a huge savings in social security.

yes, that's what the dutch study determined. i'll bet that would also work with other substances. let's legalize them all, have people die earlier because of their substance abuses and lower our taxes because of the $ we make taxing drugs and saving on social security and medicare costs.

mctopeka wrote:

gametime wrote: mctopeka wrote: jc wrote: if the use of drugs kept people from being productive workers, we would be hard pressed to field a productive work force in any industry. i am opposed to mandatory drug testing for anyone except those who are under court order due to criminal violations involving drugs. i am also in favor of ending the ridiculously expensive and totally ineffective "war on drugs" and i favor the legalization of drugs. i oppose giving welfare to large corporations and those who already make far above the average american income. like the vast majority of americans i favor helping poor people. i am also in favor of work requirements to receive that assistance, but i oppose the gov't meddling in people's personal lives. Let me get this right, you want to legalize crack cocaine, heroin, powdered cocaine, lsd, meth, weed, and basicly any other recreational drug of choice? Weed we could probably agree on, but drugs in general I have a problem with. if they legalize them i say tax the hell out of them, think of the revenue that could generate. It will cost more to legalize drugs than to fight it.

how did you calculate that?

did jc really say he wants drugs legalized?