I did not make a good argument against the testing for drugs in welfare recipients because I didn't show the other side. I left the opposing view points out of my rebuttal, mainly because they make my blood boil. But, I'm going to have to get over that. Politics are nothing if they can not be discussed with out emotion. So, I'm going to try again, because what good is the blogosphere, if not to beat a dead horse. (no animals were harmed in the making of this argument.)
One argument in favor of drug testing welfare recipients is that people with jobs get drug tested often enough, why not drug test people with out jobs? (Pardon me while I pummel my pillow)
So, let's eliminate from the equation those welfare recipients that have jobs and only talk about those who don't. Drug testing is considered a "search" under the U.S. constitution. And as I hope every citizen of our country knows, a search can only be performed if there is probable cause. Now, we've eliminated the job holders( I mean, according to this new law, they will still be drug-tested, but we just aren't going to talk about them). Of the people who do not have jobs, MANY have recently lost their jobs. We are officially in a recession. Jobs are scarce. Simply being out of work, even when the country is doing well, cannot possibly be considered probable cause that you are on drugs.
Now, let's eliminate all of the out of work recipients who own a suit and tie or a nice pencil skirt, which, by the way, is impossible because you can't decide who gets money by how they dress. It's cruel. (excuse me while I run off some steam. 100 times around the block should do it...&*&%$$RUYHD$....) Okay. So, now the people who are freshly out of work, and those with low paying jobs are getting piss tested so that the rest of us who don't have to wait in line for cheese, can feel good about giving them money. Now the people who are left are the ones who can't hold down a job and haven't had one recently to hold down. Druggies, you say?
(M#%&ther F3#^&#eR)
What about handicapped recipients? Veterans still dealing with post traumatic stress disorder? Our country is still fighting a war and once again, being honorably discharged from the military is not probable cause that one is shooting up. I will grant you that those recipients who are in wheel chairs and hooked up to a catheter would have a much easier time sharing a little urine. They could just trade their full bag for an empty one. "Here! Take it! Leave me alone!" We crack whores should be so lucky.
Hmmm... maybe it is due to a lack of creativity, or maybe I'm just tired from fighting off the anger, but I can't think of another group of people who might be collecting welfare. I am truly sorry to those people. I'm sure their are many more reasons out there that someone may need government assistance, that also do not include drug use, but I'm at a loss.
The only people left are that small percentage of druggies who party hard, kill brain cells and have no drive to become contributing members of society.
May I pose a question??
How many of those irresponsible maggots do you think would have the presence of mind to remember that it is the day they are supposed to pick up their check?
I can't remember what day of the week it is during the summer, quite often, because I simply don't have to drive my kids to school. That one little break from responsibility makes me forgetful.
But let's just say, that they own a calendar, which is pretty cool, they mark the check-date on it, again smart, and they actually have the decency to show up and collect. Don't you think they might also have the wherewithal, so take a detox drink? It is possible, you know, to be a completely worthless drug head 5 days a week, wake up one day, detox and collect a check the next day. Then again, even that would show a modicum of responsibility.
Let's take the detoxed-drug-heads out of the equation and leave only the one's who really have drug problems and will probably not get those checks, either because they will simply stop showing up, or because they show up and piss dirty. How many of those people have kids that won't get their weekly McDonald's cheeseburger on the way home before their parents blow the rest on drugs? I think people (especially pro-lifers) should agree that we cannot punish children because their parents are worthless.
"It will help the children" I hear you crying. How? How will it help them? The stipulation is that the parents simply won't get paid, are we now going to link the welfare drug test into Child Protective Services? Would we really contemplate relocating children based on their parents bodily fluids?? Why not just round up all the poor people and stick them in concentration camps? Then we can control them better.... and make sure they don't eat poppyseed bagels.
Another argument "for" drug-testing is that people who have jobs, are disabled, jobless but not on drugs, etcetera, wouldn't mind peeing in a cup. I agree! I wouldn't mind peeing in a cup either, if it meant that I could give my check to one of those drug-head's kids. But that isn't how it works. How it works is that the few (less than 4%) of welfare recipients who would not pick up their check would save the state only enough money to pay for the lab work of the people who pee clean.
Not to mention that, those few who say they wouldn't mind, cannot speak for everyone. We are all different and just because one person sees it as worth their while and tax-payer dollars to sit in a waiting room, have their name called and give a piss(grrrrrrrrr.......), doesn't mean that I think it is. If I were on welfare, with my beautifully clean pee, I would consider it an insult. I do not think that anyone other than a medical professional has any right to analyze my urine, with my permission.
I do however, call the police and offer my house to be searched every time I hear that a murder has been committed in the city. After all, I am a person who lives in the city.... why not spend wasteful hours searching my house for the weapon, suspect and/or body? It's not ridiculous at all.
What are some other arguments for the drug-testing?
Some say that government assistance should be used to feed your children or keep a roof over your heads not for Drugs, alcohol or cigarettes(deeerrrrrrrrrrrrrruuuuuuurrrr). I agree. That's why food stamps are issued. By the way, when they pee into a cup, they aren't going to be tested for nicotine and alcohol isn't illegal. So, what next, we tell them they can't smoke or have a few beers either? I guess that fits, laws do seem to be different for people depending on their income. Just look at professional athletes, they do drugs all the time.
We cannot control how people spend their money. What if they want to buy paint supplies because they are starving artists? It's not food or a roof but it's not drugs, alcohol or cigarettes either. What about people who instead of buying food at the grocery store, give an exuberant amount to their church? What gives us the right to dictate what is harmful to them and what is not? What if there are parents who are only abusive when they're sober?
The bottom line is that adults must be treated as adults. It is not the governments job to parent us. And the program is working at 96% proficiency already. Can't we come up with bigger fish to fry?
On the other hand, there is a silver lining. If the people who pee clean were to sell their pee to the drug-heads and subsequently no longer need their welfare checks it would leave more money to the people on drugs. Then, EVERYONE GETS PAID. Good job Florida!
Here's my point. And after all this, I feel I have earned the right to make one:
We cannot control miscreants. That is why they are miscreants. They do not want to be controlled and we must ask ourselves why we feel the need to urge conformity.
As long as there is money, there will always be rich and poor and as long as there are laws there will always be law-breakers.
A: Knock Knock?
B: Who's there?
A: Control Freaks. Now you say, "Control freaks who?!"
No comments:
Post a Comment