Re: Wonder why "no name" hasn't seemed to respond to thread? NFM

    On 5/23/08, johnv wrote:
    > Haaa! We do agree on something. Drug screening for most, I SAID MOST,
    > welfare receipients would cut down on the amount of tax dollars spent
    > to support the lifestyle that is ripping our nation apart. But, if I
    > expect them to pee in a cup, so will I. I have nothing to hide. Don't
    > give me the privacy BS because anyone can take your name and have a
    > conplete background search done in ten minutes. That is an invasion of
    > privacy. Peeing in a cup is minor in my book considering all the other
    > threats that are out there. What can they learn from a cup
    > of "pwhatever"? Where I live? No! SS number? No! Bank accounts? No!
    > Given a little "research" time on the internet things change. Close
    > up "live" video of your house? Yes! Who lives in your house? Yes! How
    > much you make? Yes! Are you single? Yes! These are the thing that worry
    > me about privacy. $9.99 on E-bay will yield software to do all the
    > above searches without you even knowing about it. Just seems your
    > priorities are a little skewed, but have a great day anyway!
    > On 5/22/08, LaTeach wrote:
    >> Most "real world" jobs require you to submit to random urine tests.
    >> That being said, I've been working in the "real world" for over 10
    >> years now (4 in education) and have never been asked to submit a
    >> sample. The real question you should ask yourself is what kind of
    >> example are you setting for children if you're worried about the
    >> outcome of the test?
    >> And on my other soapbox why is it that I have to be subject to a
    >> random urine test in order to have a job, pay taxes, social security,
    >> etc., yet welfare receipients are not required to take one in order
    >> to receive assistance? Think of the how much the state could save
    >> (and re-invest in education) if this were the case!