"It’s our choice to use if we want to use," resident Amy Brown said of the policy, which Democratic mayor London Breed proposed this week as a measure to fight the city's homelessness and crime epidemic that's causing businesses to flee.
*****
That's fine. It may be their right to abuse their own bodies as much as they want but it's also our right to choose to not pay for their fucking drugs.
Yep. I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteWait, wait, isn't this what they want, to make sure that they are addicts before they get cash?
ReplyDeleteCalifornia wants MORE addicts, not LESS, so get high and get paid.
Why don't they stop giving out needles if they want people to stop doing IV drugs. If they want to get rid of the homeless, then just let the sanitation companys clean the sidewalks.
ReplyDeleteAw, Amy, cry me a river. You're right, it's your choice to use. If the people who fund your addiction stop doing that, that's THEIR choice. Nothing worse than an entitled junkie...
ReplyDeleteWhile this is likely a stunt on the part of the liberal looney, it's still a great idea. If it motivates even one to get clean, excellent. The rest, well, "Root, hog, or die"
My body, my choice, your corpse.
ReplyDeleteIf your decisions cost me tax dollars then it becomes MY business. If you make wrong decisions and can't work, then you must pay for your bad decisions.
ReplyDeleteForget about banning plastic bags. Ban plastic needles.
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, ban Narcan
DeleteWhen does it get to be the taxpayers choice whether or not to support these parasites?
ReplyDeleteCC
Requiring recipients to pass a drug test before receiving welfare payments is certainly not unfair to anyone. No one if forcing them to take the test and taxpayers should not be on the hook for someone else's bad habits. It's a shame we can't apply the same logic to Congresses spending addiction, but I digress.
ReplyDeleteSadly, this will do nothing to lower crime. Fact is, it will cause crime to spike because the addicts, unable to get welfare dollars, will resort to crime to pay for their fix. More Liberal Unintended Consequences for which the taxpayer will again pay the price.
Winner winner chicken dinner!!!
DeleteRemember last week when saying 'drug test for welfare' was rayciss to these liberals? They want the chaos and crime.
When they burn down SF, will London Breed become London Broil?
ReplyDeleteI say the same thing whether it is using public funds for luxuries like Internet service, eating out at restaurants, using drugs, or even buying junk food. I don't care if you do those things, it's a free country. I just don't think that it should be done at taxpayer expense.
ReplyDeleteThis has been tried before. The government spent more money on drug testing than they saved in welfare monies.
ReplyDeleteAnd for those who are in honest need? It's one more (sometimes impossible) hoop to jump through. Rides to the testing center aren't free, and don't take zero time out of the day. Nevermind the bureaucratic bullshit associated with scheduling the testing, loosing the results, getting tested AGAIN, etc.
Even for those who are clean it's not trivial. For those who are struggling to BE clean, it's one more burden stopping them and adding struggle to their lives. For those who aren't clean and aren't even trying to be anymore? Well, they exist, but they're also lying cheating bastards who will do everything they can (pee bottles strapped to inner thigh is famous) to pass anyway. Cheaper and quicker to ignore them. They're all leeches on society anyway, who cares?
If you're going to do "charity" (giving out other people's money IS NOT charity! It's vote buying.) then just fucking do it. The fewer restrictions the better the impact on people's lives. Which is one of the many, many, many reasons that private charities have MUCH MUCH higher impact on people's lives per dollar spent.
Piling on extra costs, barriers, and penalties helps no one except the virtue-signalling politicians. Republicans instead of Democrats most likely in this case, but they're all lying assholes destroying society and wealth for the own short term gain, so fuck'em!
John G
Show your work. Since when does a monthly 35 dollar (retail, which the government won't be paying) drug test cost more than giving somebody several hundred dollars in cash in addition to food stamps in that same time frame?
DeleteYour argument sounds believable, but it only shows the testing was approached the wrong way. Instead of testing everyone and then deciding who to remove, remove everyone and only reinstate those who request testing and pass. That will eliminate a substantial number who know that they will not pass the test. After that it's just an annual scheduled recertification, along with automatic removals for a year of those arrested for a drug offense. If new people want to apply, use a prelim test followed by a second test four or five months later. Only those who pass both test get into the queue for an apartment.
DeleteI passed a dozen DOT random drug tests while driving a truck. Went to one of them high as a kite.
DeleteSynthetic urine, $35 a bottle....
Anonymous@2:06 - see Anonymous@3:01. Also keep in mind that these aren't going to be the $35/test "Go in the bathroom and pee in this cup" that your employer hands you. These are going to be the "Go to the testing center, after making an appointment, get patted down, show three forms of ID, and still get fooled by a $35 bottle of synthetic urine." type.
DeleteI'll admit that I haven't looked it up, but I'd be surprised if it was less than $100 these days. And shocked if the government didn't make it cost 10x as much so they can hire the city councilman's nephew to do it so he has a nice sinecure.
In other words, just like everything else the government does - pointless and expensive. And horribly incontinent and time-wasting, too. Can't forget that.
How about we cut government "charity" entirely? That sounds like a better idea to me. And get rid of income tax and government monitoring of the financial system too, while we're dreaming.
If we're looking to make incremental progress on getting rid of government charity entirely, the right approach is to simply reduce the amounts, not increase barriers to entry. That way leads to welfare queens. Basically, only those who have the time to devote to gaming the system.
Horsecrap. California Dept of Corrections parole officers use the pee in a cup tests and stand there physically watching while their charges do, and they work just fine. Why should welfare rats be treated any different?
DeleteI'm in agreement with you as far as cutting welfare entirely for people that are capable of working though.
In prison they can watch ya pee, damn sure can't do that to the public (invasion of pprivacy, "racist", 4th amendment violation etc)
DeleteWant results, test the hair. 1 year suspension from benefits. Reapply & 2nd positive test then permanent ban
As to the expected crime increase - there is one place for criminals. Build as many prisons as needed.
Oh yeah, stop giving out free narcan & drug kits quid pro joe* liberal idiots
ch
I've been hurt on the job and had the company doctor watch me piss in the cup.
DeleteAnybody with an actual job has to get drug tested to pay for her benefits. So she can get tested if she wishes to receive them.
ReplyDeleteI had 21 years in the military where I had about 30 Piss tests. I retired and get a job that requires a piss test upon employment and was subject to random and a mandatory if I was involved in any accident. I had a CDL and was subject to a law enforcement piss test at will. I now drive a truck as a retirement job and I am subject to the piss test. I am 62. I don't smoke pot but I know how to get around the test. Failing a piss test is just stupid. The blood test or hair test is a different story.
ReplyDelete