by Joe Kirkpatrick
This month's column is so easy to understand, it is going to be very short.
A lot of controversy has been generated lately about whether or not welfare recipients should be required to take a drug test before receiving their benefits. To my amazement, many bleeding heart liberals have protested the enacting of such a law.
Let's look at the simple truth: You have little or no income. You need to feed and shelter, not only yourself, but your children, as well. All you have to do is pee in a cup once a month to prove you are not spending what little money you have on illegal drugs. As far as I know, the law does not prohibit you taking what little money you have now and spending it on alcohol, cigarettes, tattoos, piercings, and lottery tickets, even though you should be using it to feed your children. You just cannot spend it on illegal drugs. You can still waste what little money you have on big screen TV's, makeup, going to the beauty shop, gold teeth and jewelry, you just cannot spend it on illegal drugs.
The liberals argument is always, "But doing this will make their children go hungry." If the parents are using illegal drugs, when they don't now have the money to feed their children, do you really think by giving them more money that is really going to change? Another argument the liberals use is "There are a lot of good people who need these benefits." Well, if they are "good people," I have to suppose they are not using illegal drugs and should not mind peeing in a cup.
Many employers now require random drug tests as a condition of employment. Should a welfare recipient not be required to do the same?
Let's make it simple to understand: If you were offered $400 - $500, or more, a month to pee in a cup, would you not do it? Heck, I would probably be willing to do it for much less than that. Where do I sign up?