Making everyone pee, no. Making someone busted for drugs in the past, yes. As part of any future issues, and as part of getting accepted into a food program.
And if they test positive, then they _need_ to be dealt with in some way. A different program. Supervised housing. Regular checkins. Something. The status quo ain't gonna cut it. Letting them continue to use drugs in front of their kids is just about a guarantee for issues in the next generation. And if she has 3 kids, the problem probably gets worse each generation. On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not advocating NO oversight. (Like that would ever happen lol.) I said > that making people take pee tests to feed their kids is using a very large > weapon of shame to combat a very rare problem. > - Show quoted text - > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Jerry Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What finger pointing party? > > > > Who are you arguing with? (I am confused) > > > > You made what I considered a ridiculous statement (needing to prove "the > > majority" of anything is a requirement for looking at something with more > > scrutiny), and I was hoping you could explain why you would require proof > > of > > a majority being involved in wrong actions to provide some oversight. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Because to the extent that that teen mother gives the slightest damn > > about > > > that child she is still doing better for it than a bureaucracy will. To > > the > > > extent that she can imagine a better future for herself, it is > generally > > > cheaper to provide moderate amounts of carefully targetted assistance > to > > > help her make it happen than it is to let that family go into financial > > > free > > > fall. > > > > > > That's why. > > > > > > If neither of those things are true then perhaps the child is better > off > > > elsewhere and the mother should be allowed to hit bottom if she > insists. > > > > > > But we are still parsing stereotypes that for the most part are not > > valid. > > > I > > > haven't looked this up in about six or seven years, but at time the > > average > > > recipient of ADFC was white, divorced and in her thirties, lived in > Ohio > > or > > > Kentucky, and had a court order for child support that nobody could be > > > bothered to enforce. > > > > > > ::shrug:: sorry to bring facts to a finger-pointing party. > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Jerry Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Why "a majority"? Why should there be _any_? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well, Gruss wants facts so let's start here. Can you demonstrate to > > my > > > > > satisfaction that a majority of those using social programs are > > > > > "irresponsible teens"? > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:290712 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
