Drug testing for welfare recipients

[Jeffy25]

I didn't see another thread on this, if there is/was, you can move this.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1700934.html

I have a hard time understanding why anyone would be against it.

"I haven't talked to a single person not in politics that thinks it's a bad idea," he said. "We want to support people suffering from drug addiction, but we don't want to support their habit."

I understand, but isn't it time for tough love? Why do those that make good choices have to pay for those that make poor choices?

Anyway, I have my opinion, it's based a lot on personal experience, and I understand that may cloud my opinions. But how can anyone really be opposed to drug testing for welfare recipients.

[TunTavern]

I'm against it, because there are about 50 million Americans on welfare. Drug testing all of them will be expensive, and frankly, the state cannot afford it. Ideally, welfare should be scrapped entirely, but I digress. I know financial responsibility isn't something that politicians think of, as they just love to steal money and devalue the currency when they want to spend things they don't have, but that's why I would be against such a measure if I cared so much. There isn't really much anyone can do now anyway. The current politicians are interested in plundering future generations why they still have the time to do so and most Americans live in a retarded fantasy land where there aren't consequences for these actions, so I'll save my energy for when it comes to rebuilding.

[dbroncos78087]

I think it is a great idea. There are people out there who need help and we should definitely help them. But at the same time they have to want our help and they have to want to help themselves. If we have to nudge them along to get them to want to help themselves then so be it. Were i in politics this would be one of the first things i would put into place even if i never got elected again.

[Jeffy25]

I'm against it, because there are about 50 million Americans on welfare. Drug testing all of them will be expensive, and frankly, the state cannot afford it. Ideally, welfare should be scrapped entirely, but I digress. I know financial responsibility isn't something that politicians think of, as they just love to steal money and devalue the currency when they want to spend things they don't have, but that's why I would be against such a measure if I cared so much. There isn't really much anyone can do now anyway. The current politicians are interested in plundering future generations why they still have the time to do so and most Americans live in a retarded fantasy land where there aren't consequences for these actions, so I'll save my energy for when it comes to rebuilding.

I wouldn't call this an expansion in gov't. a.) you probably eliminate some money that goes into welfare because some recipients would be taken off their support until they could pass a test and b.) drug tests as a whole do not cost that much. c.) welfare was the expansion of the gov't, this is controlling that expansion, which has it's own cost

[jrice9]

I'm for this:

If people want the government's help recovering fne, but the taxpayer shouldnt be paying for drugs

[Nymfan87]

I'm for this:

If people want the government's help recovering fne, but the taxpayer shouldnt be paying for drugs

True, but the taxpayer would be paying for their drug testing, which isn't free. I'd have to see some research numbers on whether or not it would actually save money.

[Jeffy25]

True, but the taxpayer would be paying for their drug testing, which isn't free. I'd have to see some research numbers on whether or not it would actually save money.

Drug testing in of itself, isn't that expensive.

If a person is getting 1000 bucks a month (round figure) in financial assistance, and because they fail drug testing, that 1000 a month would eventually be removed (I'm sure there would be suspensions or a probation system first). That 1000 a month would certainly cover the cost of several drug tests. Or so I would assume, especially moving forward when that 1000 a month becomes 12,000 a year.

I look at it like this.

"NYfan, I am going to give you 1000 bucks on the first of every month. But there are stipulations if you want that money. These stipulations are not unethical, and in fact, are simply asking you to follow the laws that the rest of society are governed with.

If you can't meet the stipulations, then you don't get the thousand bucks."

This isn't about the national deficit, or debt, or spending. If the gov't is going to give out money to help people, I think it is reasonable that people be expected and asked to follow the laws of our society. The same laws that the taxpayers are asked to follow and are giving the money into these funds.

[TunTavern]

I wouldn't call this an expansion in gov't. a.) you probably eliminate some money that goes into welfare because some recipients would be taken off their support until they could pass a test and b.) drug tests as a whole do not cost that much. c.) welfare was the expansion of the gov't, this is controlling that expansion, which has it's own cost

Except that you don't. Let's see what the ACLU says:

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/...on-eligibility

And I think they're generous with their cost analysis. They give figures - seen and unseen figures - for how much implementing this system would cost, but they fail to address the nature in which it will be implemented. It won't be implemented like a normal business with the interests of saving money, but instead, it will likely be another sort of pork where the local politicians organize the largest and most expensive bureaucracy possible for the job because the beneficiaries of the useless job will support them for the rest of their unethically employed lives.

Basically, the reason why no politicians object to this measure is because the funding - according to the minds of most Americans - comes from nowhere, and it basically ensures them another constituency of violent Americans who will vote for them. It's perfect for them.

[philab]

Why do we care if welfare recipients are on drugs?

[flips333]

Sure as long as every person on social security, with a government job, anyone who takes medicare funds (all doctors and nurses and hospital staff) and anyone who gets a tax break agrees to the same testing.

Also simple drug tests are very unreliable and can lead to false positives fairly easily. Decongestants, ADHD meds, pain meds, poppy seeds, and a host of other things can set off these tests.

[Labgrownmangoat]

Why do we care if welfare recipients are on drugs?

This. Are we also going to test social security recipients? They get government money. How about people who get tax refunds? An argument could be made that they get government money. Veterans get government benefits. Hell, kids in school are receiving a service partially paid for by federal funds. People driving on Interstate highways benefit from federal highway funding. Please stop at the piss tollbooth before hitting the onramp. . .

The basis of this idea is twofold. First, that accepting certain kinds of help from the government is a moral issue, and those that do so have moral problems. It's paternalistic nonsense. Second, it's frankly an issue of racial stereotypes. Saint Ronald Reagan himself helped propagate the inaccurate, racially charged stereotype of the ghetto "welfare queen" driving a Cadillac, and it still exists today.

If we want to, across the board, test everyone on SSI, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, etc., etc., etc. I would be closer to being for this. As is, no way.

[flips333]

This. Are we also going to test social security recipients? They get government money. How about people who get tax refunds? An argument could be made that they get government money. Veterans get government benefits. Hell, kids in school are receiving a service partially paid for by federal funds. People driving on Interstate highways benefit from federal highway funding. Please stop at the piss tollbooth before hitting the onramp. . .

The basis of this idea is twofold. First, that accepting certain kinds of help from the government is a moral issue, and those that do so have moral problems. It's paternalistic nonsense. Second, it's frankly an issue of racial stereotypes. Saint Ronald Reagan himself helped propagate the inaccurate, racially charged stereotype of the ghetto "welfare queen" driving a Cadillac, and it still exists today.

If we want to, across the board, test everyone on SSI, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, etc., etc., etc. I would be closer to being for this. As is, no way.

You know I made a post like this too... But now that I think about no. Mind your own business folks. It just pisses me off that one group of people seem to have this don't tread on me attitude, these "Christians" are so worried that a poor person is pulling one over on them. Drug testing will not help these folks, and it will cost more than it saves.

Here are a couple of facts. Poverty is associated with Drug use. yep. Fact. If you are poor you are more likely to be abusive or dependent on drugs.

This is also true.... if you are rich and do drugs you are less likely to become abusive and dependent even if you do the same amount of drugs as a poor person. Why you might ask..? cause you have money dumb ***. Resources make it easier to deal with a period of drug use and to not cycle into and out of it. Wealth comes with a good job and benefits, parents that are alive and around, more social support. A rich person with a drug problem has a problem, while a poor person with a drug problem well they are just a criminal.

What it comes down to is people don't like poor people. They don't like dirt, grafitti, and crime and all that comes with it. So instead of doing something that might actually impact the situation what do we do? We punish them. THAT'S JUST ****ED UP.


BTW (I'm not saying all chirstians, just the ones with ideas like this, they are not in any way shape or form "Chirst-like" which growing up catholic is what I was taught the word chirstian meant. And to be honest I still think of as a noble goal)

[GGGGG-Men]

I 100% object to drug testing at any level for any reason.

[Jeffy25]

so if you fail a drug test do you not have to pay in?

[philab]

so if you fail a drug test do you not have to pay in?

I doubt it. What does that have to do with anything?