From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.peeves,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 14:56:39 BST
Followup-To: alt.dreams.wet.right-wing
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Jenni Sheehey <JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> Apparently in this state there is a proposed bill that would cause
> people receiving cash assistance (welfare) from the government to have
> to submit to random drug testing.  If someone tested positive, they
> would have to agree to enter a free drug rehab program, and would
> be tested every three months for the following year, assuming they were
> still receiving benefits.  If they refuse, they'll lose benefits.
> 
> This bill is not my peeve.
> 
> Peeve: Everybody and their brother are getting up in arms about this
> bill.  The director of the PA (Pennsylvania) ACLU (American Civil
> Liberties Union) is quoted in an AP (Associated Press) article as saying
> "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."
> 
> 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.

Well hey, why stop there?

People receiving welfare cheques might be spending the money on stolen goods,
did you think of that?  So why not introduce a bill saying that anyone who
claims welfare has to volunteer to have his house searched by police, and
that he has to produce valid receipts for all goods he owns?

People receiving welfare cheques might be spending the money on alcohol and
then driving a car, did you think of that?  So why not introduce a bill
saying that anyone who claims welfare has to volunteer to mandatory
breathalyzer tests every time he operates a vehicle?

People receiving welfare cheques might be spending the money on food or
cigarettes that are bad for them, did you think of that?  So why not
introduce a bill saying that anyone who claims welfare has to volunteer to
have his diet dictated by experts from the US Government's nutritional advice
bureau?

And while we're taking blood samples, why don't we record their DNA
fingerprints?  Just to be on the safe side?  You never know when that sort of
information will come in handy.

Alternatively, why not take your fascist wet dreams to a more appropriate
newsgroup, and stop giving PSUVM the kind of reputation it seemingly
deserves?

> It absolutely astounds me that it should be legal to have employers for
> whom one is working be allowed to test you, but that employers for whom
> you are doing nothing should not be allowed to do so.

It absolutely astounds me that it should be legal to have employers test you
for drugs which will not impair your ability to perform your job if taken
outside work hours.

Call me old-fashioned, but I happen to think that what I get up to in my
spare time is none of Mantis' business, unless it interferes with my ability
to write code.

> Besides, it's not like we're talking about a full body cavity search,
> here, anyway.

Oh, well THAT makes it alright then.

> 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,
> 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.

I'll start worrying about whether the unemployed and homeless spend public
money wisely when I see cast-iron guarantees that tax-fattened leeches like
George Bush and John Major are spending tax money wisely.

If a welfare claimant who receives a few tens of dollars a week has to have a
blood test to prove he's spending the money wisely, what should George Bush
submit to to prove he's spending his tens of thousands of dollars of public
funds (i.e. his salary) wisely?

> they are not working.  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.

Well, I've got this little scheme.  We take your fingerprints, DNA
fingerprints, retina scans, your religious and political affiliations, your
credit record, your medical record, and all your other personal information
such as your address and home telephone number.  We file it all away on a big
public computer.

I'm sure you'll consent.  After all, you have nothing to hide, do you?


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Newsgroups: alt.peeves