Occasionally someone says, does or writes something that most of wish we had been the first to talk about, write about or do something about.
Not long ago my long-time broadcasting buddy Arnold Jackson relayed something that he found somewhere and thought I might be interested. As it turned out I had just read something along the same lines and therefore this piece was indeed thought provoking.
We know not who penned the piece but it was titled: To Pee or not to Pee?
And the man, at least I think it was a man, wrote: 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 paycheque, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test, which is no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass such a test. So, here is my question. Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque since I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand that I have no problem helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their BUTT--doing drugs while I work.
Can you imagine how much money each province would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque?
He, or she, added: “Just a thought, but all politicians should have to pass the same test too!
What brought the whole issue to light was a story I read that in fact the State of Florida is instituting a plan that would hamper the people we have been referring to so far in this piece. Florida is apparently the first state to require drug testing to receive welfare!
The governor Rick Scott signed a new law with these words: “If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug free.”
But they are doing it with the emphasis on the person applying for welfare. Each applicant will have to pay for a drug test but that money will be reimbursed if they are drug free. Here’s the key though: If they test positive for illicit substances they won’t be eligible for the funds, or “free money”, for a year or until they receive treatment. If one fails a second time they will be banned from receiving funds for three years.
Apparently there are those who are saying the law is unconstitutional but you can shoot down that argument with the aforementioned letter from the unknown man or woman. To apply for a j ob in Florida one has to pass a drug test so why would it not apply to getting welfare?
As was pointed out earlier not many would argue that there are people out there in desperate need of welfare to get through each and every day. And they should get that necessary help. But those who use the system to receive welfare funds for alcohol or drugs should not only be refused but in the minds of many should in fact be jailed.
I would like to know how our readers feel about this subject one way or another. You could email your thoughts to [email protected]. I’m thinking the results will be more than interesting.
Anyway, since we didn’t provide you with the joke of the week last time around we’ll make it up with a couple today.
A young man would ask a generous man for a dollar every morning for some six months. Finally the man said: “Why didn’t you just ask me for $100 and get it over with?” The panhandler replied: “It seems imprudent to put all one’s begs in one ask it.” Corny it is, but funny just the same don’t you think?
The other is about a father spending time explaining to his little girl that Roger was her half-brother. When Roger came for a visit, the girl started at him long and hard and finally whispered, “Where’s the other half?”
