Dew drops like radiant sapphires cling to the morning grass.
The tranquil moment is disturbed by the scintillating caress of a cool morning breeze.
A man stands in the midst of a field, eyes closed, enraptured in an introspective moment.
The crash of an airliner casts sonic dispersions below.
The man drops his denim clad knees to the moist earth, the Sapphires burst.
The wind increases its bite; whipping leaves… wet denim chills the flesh below.
Time breaks, shatters and reforms in the gasp of this one wily moment.
The unavoidable, inconvenient, and absurd; it is decided; it happens today.
—————– Bulletin Message —————–
From: Franklin Carpenter
Date: Nov 29, 2007 1:07 PM
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 do 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!
——————–My Reply————————–
Interesting thought. I’m not sure that I agree with that entirely but I’ll add these two thoughts.
1) Not everyone that has a job has to take urine tests. And, quite frankly I’d be a bit insulted if I was getting an outstanding job performance rating and then asked to take a drug test.
My question would be if my employer does not have a cause have to issue me a test for business reasons why should they at all? (this is in reference to random/regular drug testing not for initial employment, which is more justified, being that they don’t know you yet.) While I don’t support drug use anyway, the implied accusation/suspicion is upseting.
2) I’m not sure I like the idea of the government administering drug tests to people without probable cause; makes it seem like your guilty until proven innocent.
HOWEVER, I could see this for someone that is applying for welfare, and has prior convictions (felony or misdemeanor) for possession or what not.
Also, would these drug tests be grounds for a criminal/misdemeanor charge or just suspension of benefits? And for how long? One screw up and you can never get benefits again? or is the cooling off period a month, a year…? Putting this type of legislation in place would have to involve a careful examination of how it would impact those it is supposed to be helping. For example, a family where the father does drugs but the mother is clean and there are kids involved for instance, do you cut off the whole family because dad’s a deadbeat? Do you call CPS based on this positive test?
3) Okay 3 points then. Finally, this is why I question the validity of the government being involved in “charity” like this in the first place. If this were a private organization; they could place whatever rules they deem to be necessary for to ensure a proper disribution of benefits. With the end of the of the welfare state and the presumed reduction in taxes we (as a nation), would have more disposable income to donate to the aforementioned charities. Those charities that one believes will distribute the funds in a manner that one believes to be proper, would receive ones donations. This puts you in control of how your money is charitably distributed. But that’s the libertarian in me =)
