Drug tests for welfare recipients

Urine Sample

A little while ago, I wrote about the people who are permanent residents on welfare because of drug abuse issues.  My point was that while they appear like a natural Democrat constituency, the fact is that most of them are too dysfunctional to vote.

Here’s another perspective on that particular class of welfare recipient:

I have a job.

I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes & the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in my case, 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.

So, here is my question: 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 BUTT—-doing drugs while I work….

Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program “URINE OR YOU’RE OUT”!

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!

P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too! They should also have to pass an intelligence test, a common sense test and an understanding the constitution test, as well!!! Remember November 2014 is coming.

Hat tip:  Caped Crusader

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. says

    And those tests should be made by the Japanese. That way, corruption and deal buying is limited. Can’t bribe people if you don’t speak the lingo.
    Sometimes, when 2 tribes (ours and Obama’s) are fighting a civil war, it takes external intervention (Like US invasion of Iraq) to solve things. It’s a strange idea, but also applies to US problems, not just third world problems.
    Or you can fight a war and annihilate the Left down to the last person. Either way is fine.

  2. jj says

    Dennis Miller sums this up as pithily as anyone ever did, I suppose: “I have no objection to helping the helpless; I’m not on board with supporting the clueless.” 
    I agree with that.  The rest of us have voluntarily and witlessly surrendered far too many of our rights as Americans – an example would be mandatory drug testing whether or not you’ve ever given anyone the slightest reason to suppose you indulge; saying “no” is not an option if you want to keep the job – to be tolerating the idea that we should cheerfully subsidize the habits of those to whom we are inclined to be charitable.  It’s a simple notion: if you wish to be on the receiving end of our largesse, then you need to demonstrate you’re as clean as we are.  And I’ll take it a step farther: if you’re on the receiving end, then you have a bit too much of President Jugears’ famous ‘skin in the game,’ and as long as you’re living on welfare you don’t get to vote, because your presence skews the results.    

  3. says

    I mentioned before that a special status “Ward of the State” with limitations or banning on voting and other political contributions for those who take federal handouts would have been one way to block the Left temporarily.
    But that was before, when people still had time to plot and plan. Even now, it would only buy a little bit of time. That little bit of time is not enough to tip the strategic scales of fate.

Leave a Reply