Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Should N.D. require drug tests for certain recipients of public assistance?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(59)

ChasinND

Feb-05-13 12:19 AM

God this should fly right thru to the governors desk to sign........

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MarkHighwater

Feb-05-13 1:18 AM

They should pee test all public officials/politicians who are drawing a government check/pension as well...just more hypocrisy if they single out welfare mothers ! ! !

14 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Feb-05-13 1:42 AM

Sure, if a.) tests are given in a regularly scheduled, impartially administered fashion, and b.) failure of said test does not rule out aid (depending on the program), but is followed-up with rehabilitative assistance.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MarkHighwater

Feb-05-13 3:25 AM

Just another case of structural violence against women and children by the power elite...."poverty kills"

7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Feb-05-13 3:48 AM

In theory, yes. Drug tests are administered to the working class, why not those on welfare. But, it is not that simple. The bill reads that they would have to be clean before getting money unless kids are involved. If that is the case, then a family member, friend or neighbor would get money. We know how that would turn out. Someone said testing was prohibited of government employees except for military and heavy equipmnet operators. I haven't checked the full accurracy of that, but, I would certainly not be opposed to testing our legislators on a regular basis ;-)

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kingdom

Feb-05-13 7:12 AM

Statiscally not a wise choice. The expense of the testing outweighs any benefit. At least when Florida started it a few years ago a very small percentage of welfare recipients were positive. Just another way to demean the poor.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-05-13 8:08 AM

Many, many companies in our region require drug testing, not only to do the job, but to earn the money. It's simple. Everyone should be responsible. No such thing as a free lunch. What has anyone to be afraid of?

So employers get to drug test. In essence, the gov't is providing money--the "employer" if you will. It seems logical. Now if you're going to be all emotional about it, that's another matter.

Our family had assistance when we were first starting out. Drug testing to get assistance, at a time when we needed it? OK. Would have passed with flying colors. What are people afraid of?

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Feb-05-13 8:15 AM

How come the Rolling Stones, known drug users for all of their adult lives, are allowed to do concerts in the US and record albums for sale and profit and are never rehabilitated?

Answer: Money. They make millions of dollars. That means they pay taxes.

The taxes they pay allow for certain indulgences to be ignored by the powers that be. All because they have money and pay taxes.

More stupid hypocrites out there than drug users.

Is there a test for hypocrisy?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Feb-05-13 9:24 AM

The memory hole is in live mode and functioning.

A stroll down memory lane:

The Aurora, Colorado theater shooter was being treated by a University of Colorado psychotherapist and was prescribed psychotropic medications.

Drugs can do strange things to a mind.

Trusting the FDA and psychotherapists have tragic results.

Maybe better to begin there. Stop legal psychotropic drugs now. They're the most dangerous drugs out there.

The entire country is out of its mind.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Feb-05-13 10:32 AM

Mandatory drug tests should be performed on Congress!

13 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Feb-05-13 11:14 AM

If people are involved with meath (correct spelling, rhymes with death), it needs to be discovered. It is one problem substance. Regardless if they are on welfare or not.

People who are being prescribed prozac should be no longer given the medication, be given a good diet, and remain hospitalized during withdrawal of the substance. A natural return to health, both mentally and physically, is better.

Psychotropic drugs have become a major problem, legal dispensing is nothing other than drug dealing.

Total reform is mandatory, from the FDA to legislation, it all demands some other action other than what is being done.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BellaT

Feb-05-13 11:15 AM

If I have to be drug tested to earn the money that pays for their welfare, it's only fair they should have to take a drug test to receive it.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Feb-05-13 11:20 AM

And another question:

Why isn't any attention brought to the forefront about the dangers of these legal psychotropic drugs? Why hasn't that become an issue, rather than guns or mental health of some nuts?

Shouldn't that raise a red flag and maybe question what is really going on?

We all know Charlie Manson won't be registering a gun, if he ever gets a hold of one he'll use it before he registers the thing, that's for sure.

Time to focus on the abuse of the legal psychotropic drugs too.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dakotastorm

Feb-05-13 11:41 AM

quit worrying about your neighbor and start yelling about foriegn aid. really people if you know sombody on drugs turn them in. so go cast the first stone.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Feb-05-13 12:08 PM

@muleskinner

" . . . involved with meath (correct spelling, rhymes with death) . . .

WRONG.

"Meth" is short for "Methamphetamine."

Okay?

Just because words SOUND alike does not mean they are SPELLED alike.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ZRider

Feb-05-13 1:00 PM

I find it ironic that the ones who are always complaining about big government are all for this expansion of government and it's powers.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MarkHighwater

Feb-05-13 1:28 PM

Yep...More class warfare....how about euthanizing those who cannot pull themselves out of poverty...say after 3-5 years below the poverty line,and they are put out of their misery by lethal injection,and their kids can be placed in foster care...the ACLU may have a problem with this I suppose...of course its not corporate americas fault, for not providing them with a living wage..."socialism for the rich,capitalism for the rest".

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MarkHighwater

Feb-05-13 1:36 PM

And "the poor" are a 5 times greater drag on healthcare system, due to the extra cortisone their bodies produce to combat the economic pressure they endure...so put em out of their misery even quicker with a euthanasia bill.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldCat

Feb-05-13 1:51 PM

Maybe in cases where there is suspected child abuse or neglect--not sure it should be a condition of eligibility. So is the test for booze and smoking?? What percentage do you think are fraudulently getting benefits-all addictions are bad enough but going hungry because your poor shouldn't be cause to have mandatory drug testing costs to prove your not doing drugs. Just adds more administrative costs-I don't agree with it--

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Feb-05-13 2:42 PM

Old Cat, remember back in the 70's when there was all the uproar over women from domestic violent situations SMOKING?

namexxx 2nd post and already back to name calling--that didn't take long. Meath=death even when spelled meth

Muleskinner-TEST FOR HYPOCRISY? If only. you mention prozac and other legal drugs. Our legal drug in this society are driven by the pharmacies, not the docs. It is BIG money.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Feb-05-13 2:46 PM

Should N.D. harass, humiliate and hate on poor families and hungry children -- while giving tax breaks to millionaires and corporations?

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JKniffin

Feb-05-13 3:30 PM

YES!!! However, after reading and hearing about how it wasn't cost effective to do so in some states. I do not believe initially everyone should have to take drug tests. I do not believe everyone on assistance is a drug user. However, you have to be ignorant to think some people on assistance do not waste the money they have on drugs. I think if someone is suspected of something it should be just like being on probation. Random drug tests if case workers think it is necessary. Lets face it, the police department have eyes on people, and all of these departments talk to eachother. They have Suspicions of who is doing what.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JKniffin

Feb-05-13 3:33 PM

OLD CAT, booze and cigarettes are LEGAL. Illegal drugs are not the same comparison. One you are breaking the law, some drugs carry felony charges just possessing them. And with all due respect, it you have a felony you CANNOT be on assistance. So why should someone on assisstance be allowed to commit felonies??????????

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Feb-05-13 3:40 PM

Let's drug test every officer, business executive and board member -- of every corporation that receives federal tax dollars by taking advantage of business "incentives," tax breaks, bail-outs and corporate loop-holes.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Feb-05-13 3:44 PM

Is that what you think, Jack? How interesting! Please post some more of your multiple thoughts.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 59 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web