From: banta@blagg.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare
Date: 27 Jul 1992 16:47:13 GMT
Organization: Sun, Moon, and Stars
NNTP-Posting-Host: blagg

Jenni Sheehey <JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>"This welfare thing is just disgusting." She also said, "Can the Fourth
>Amendment really mean that the government cannot search your home, but
>they can search your body?"
>
>To that I say, "Hell, yes, in this case."

Pardon me, Jen, but aren't you currently on the state's dole, working
for a state university and all?  That means the the taxpayers pick up
tab when you go off on maternity leave.  Hell, when you have your
kids, that means your tax burden is decreased while those without
progeny have theirs increased.  And by trying to procreate, you're
leaving yourself wide open (heh) to various pathogens or even diluting
the gene pool, both of which boil down to taxpayer dollars.

Now I'm not saying that you're pregnant, you're making any effort to
get pregnant, or you're even wrinkling the sheets with anyone.  But
the potential exists.  Therefore I feel it's a good idea for you to
take a pregnancy test, in the presence of your boss, before receiving
each and every paycheck.  If the test comes back positive, you have
the option of being whisked to the nearest clinic for a D&C, followed
by a month of therapy or leaving your job.

Come to think of it, the pregnancy test doesn't quite have the 
invasiveness that a drug test does.  I won't be satisfied until you
have to have a full pelvic exam on a regular basis, with your boss,
his boss, and three of your peers in attendance.

>The reason I say this is that if these people are buying drugs, they're
>doing it with *my* money.  Nobody's proposing that average citizens on
>the street should have to submit to random drug testing, just people who
>are making their living by having the government pay them to do nothing.

The taxpayers of Pennsylvania have a *right* to know *their* money is
not going to senseless maternity leave and child rearing.  You're
doing it with *their* money.

>Anyway, if we want to look at it this way, it is the job of people who
>are living off of public money to use that money wisely and lawfully,

Exactly.  We just want to make sure you're using the money wisely.
Come right over here, honey, and have a seat in the comfy chair.

>and I think we can just consider this to be a job evaluation of the sort
>that most employees have, no matter what their job.  If they're using
>non-public money to buy drugs, then they obviously have enough money
>that they don't *need* public money.  Either way, I don't think that the
>proposed drug tests are an invasion of privacy.  They are always welcome
>to refuse the test, if they are willing to forego the money for which
>they are not working.  

Exactly.  Your average gynecological exam isn't an invasion of privacy
either, is it.  It's all just a matter of what you've ingested,
inhaled, injected, or stuck in your twat.  You're always welcome to
refuse the test and lose your job.

>I'm not even receiving welfare, but if they want
>to test me first, they're welcome to.  I've never been quite sure what
>the big deal was, anyway, assuming one has nothing to hide.

I'm glad to see you've come around to our way of thinking.  The
speculum and spatula are in the freezer awaiting your visit.

drew
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
I suppose that if I were a baseball fan I'd get equally peeved at
"RBIs," but the only stick-and-ball-type sport I watch much of is
women's beach volleyball with the sound turned off.
					-- Scott Fisher