Interesting - I'm suprised I had not thought of this before. Generally I'm against drug testing as pre-screening to get a job because too me it seems like you're assuming guilt instead of assuming inocent - which is not the "american way"....BUT in this case, where there person is on public assistance - hey I'm all for it. I can't imagine how much $ it would save the tax payers. Sure there would be the cost of the drug tests - but my gut tells me that it would be worth it.


>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 sitting on their
>ASS, doing 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!!!!!
>
>Guess we could title that program, 'Urine--or You're Out'.