Sunday, December 7, 2008

Urine or you're out

I think that all drugs should be legal, so I have no problem at all with people who choose to use drugs. Although I think that everyone should have tremendous personal freedom to do with themselves what they wish, they should also have to accept any consequences that result from their personal decisions. I certainly would not want anyone who can't get a job because they prefer to get high all day to be on the public dole. Quite often, in the gummint's attempt to help those in need, they create a moral hazard problem in which people have an incentive to make bad decisions.

With that in mind, I appreciate the sentiment expressed in the chain e-mail below that someone forwarded me:

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 A--, 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!!!!!!!
I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.


Anonymous said...

Very good point.

Also, would solve the issue of using state provided money and resources to buy said drugs.

But can we also solve feeding hungry children by shipping the food the gov't purchases from farmers to these families, rather than just giving money (or food stamps which can be sold for .6 on the dollar by unscrupulous grocers)?

Freemarket said...

I think that the poor are better able to spend their government handouts in the form of cash than the government would be at anticipating the product needs of the poor.

Anonymous said...

The government already purchases the food. My understanding is scant at best, but I believe they have to throw much of it away.