[Jorge]

I thought Sen. Dodd's statement opposing drug testing for welfare recipients was utterly stupid. He said that drug addiction was an illness and a person should not have to give up their welfare because they are ill.

I don't think they should have a drug test for welfare recipients either.

I don't care whether you want to classify it as an illness or a vice.

It doesn't matter.

When people need food and or shelter we should provide it, and become holy rollers judging of who is or isn't good enough morally to receive help.

I donate money to homeless shelters and certainly hope they are helping drug addicts along with everybody else.

[donnab]

so then you dont mind when they go into a store and use their welfare card to get money and use it to go buy more drugs?

[no dems]

The guy who asked the question said that he had to take a drug test to keep his job so why should welfare recipients not have to do the same to keep their welfare.

If you, other private citizens and faith-based organizations, want to support drug addicts; that’s your call. But, hard-working taxpayers shouldn’t be foreced to support their habit.

[hinckley buzzard]

When people need food and or shelter we should provide it, and become holy rollers judging of who is or isn't good enough morally to receive help. I donate money to homeless shelters and certainly hope they are helping drug addicts along with everybody else.

You might consider reading The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. You will learn a great deal about life, and people, and helping vs hurting people, that you don't yet know.

[M203M4]

I agree, we should be our brothers' keepers. However, that responsibility (a responsibility that does not flow from civil authorities) does not endow us with moral license to rob others in order to fund charity. All social assistance should be voluntarily provided. All federal handouts especially should be abolished.

As for drug testing, I agree that it should not be implemented by the government for receiving welfare (if we are stuck with welfare for the time being). Out of compassion for drug addicts? No, actually. Because it would further expand government bureaucracy. Once the technical apparatus is in place (inevitable, either through bs like this or via Hillary-care), little can stop the scope of its implementation from being expanded.

The FDA decides what you can legally take; I see nothing fundamental (aside from the Constitution, which gets s**t on in new and exciting ways every day) that would prohibit the government from decreeing that all citizens should undergo mandatory drug testing once every X months to ensure that no non-FDA approved substances are in their bodies. Tie it in to a "compassionate conservative" (religious socialism) reason, like giving further license to child-protective services if you want. And, the other nanny-staters, "Rudy-conservatives", will raise nary a peep until it is trans-fat, tobacco, red meat, etc that go off the government approved substances list.

[Fundamentally Fair]

I donate money to homeless shelters and certainly hope they are helping drug addicts along with everybody else.

Good for you...no sarcasm there. But, your choice of donation is different from our tax money.

[fish hawk]

And I’m sure there are several druggies out there who thank you for keeping their habit alive. Do you realize you are talking pure “liberal” here?

[Calm_Cool_and_Elected]

A girl that I grew up with sold her food stamps for drugs instead of feeding her three young children.

CC&E

[danmar]

I don't think they should have a drug test for welfare recipients either.

Beg to differ Jorge;...when I am required to pass a drug test, to present a good Driving record in order for me to get a job, I think the same should be applied to any freeloaders demanding public assistance.
You stay clean, you get the loot, if you want to off yourself by living a destructive life, than do it on your own time and money, not tax payers money.

I work hard for my money. When Uncle Sam comes in and takes it away from me to subsidize ones drug habits, than I have a major problem with that.

[bluefish]

Yo, I need help.

I will private mail you my PayPal account. I trust you will fund my food and shelter requirments ASAP, with no questions asked.

If you don’t send me the money, I will have you thrown in jail.

---

Silly, you say? This is EXACTLY what you seem to think is compassion and fairness. The last sentence is the problem. If you want to send me the money, that is your business. If you have to do so under threat of impisonment, that is everybody’s business.

[LowOiL]

When people need food and or shelter we should provide it, and become holy rollers judging of who is or isn't good enough morally to receive help.

Dumb post of the day award from me...

Are you saying there would be no secular donation spots... or are you saying that Church's must donate to those that might spit towards them. BTW.. most churches have been taken so many times that they have wised up to the point of giving ONLY gift certificates for food or only helping people by personally going with them to purchase items.

BTW... for the record... RELIGIOUS Conservative do out give liberals by leaps and bounds...

Conservative outgive liberals link

If still not convinced... here is a liberal source.. with same results

USA TODAY: Bible Belt Residents Most Charitable:

Are you telling us that Christians only give to churches? Are you just spewing hatred without facts... I will take the later as my guess...

[LowOiL]

36. Pennsylvania $45,367; $3,270; (41).

Your state as recognized by you FR page ranks pretty low among givers for some reason. Perhaps you should recognize that the more religious the people, the more they give.