Drug testing for welfare recipients

[Jeffy25]

money should be spent directly to the source, not a check to someone.

[dbroncos78087]

money should be spent directly to the source, not a check to someone.

I believe that is why more and more states are shifting to a debit card system as opposed to a check. I know if Virginia we use an EBT (electronic benefit transfer) card to do food stamps (and i imagine other things). I remember a commercial a while back where they said it costs 42 (i believe it was the printing costs plus the stamp price) to send out the checks and that it now costs less than (again this is my memory) a tenth of a cent to administer the benefits.

[b1e9a8r5s]

I believe that is why more and more states are shifting to a debit card system as opposed to a check. I know if Virginia we use an EBT (electronic benefit transfer) card to do food stamps (and i imagine other things). I remember a commercial a while back where they said it costs 42 (i believe it was the printing costs plus the stamp price) to send out the checks and that it now costs less than (again this is my memory) a tenth of a cent to administer the benefits.

Here in Illinois we have the link card which is exatcly what you are talking about.

[philab]

You raised a very good point on how welfare keep the underclase docile. If King Louie had fed his people instead of him and his noble class peers living the high life, he may had kept his head and French Revoltion wouldn't occur. Look at the Arab country in chaos now. It more about being unemployed and hunger then democratic needs.
This drug testing is part of a long trend to bash the poor and their benefits. What people don't realize those link cards keep alot of supermarts afloat. Just go to a poor neighborhood supermarket on the first of the month to prove that point. Drugdealers don't accept links.
Its a know fact that poor people suffer from drug use and acholicism, but that rate isn't that much higher then the rest of society. The drug baron aren't making billions of dollars off their trade on just the poor. This is a social problem that I don't feel that we have to penaltize the underclass while giving Lindsey Lohan and Rush Limbaugh a pass. I know that these people support themselves, but they can afford treatment for these problems while a poor person can't, and also suffer less harsh treatment by the court system as well. If we gave top drug treatment and better schooling to the poor, I wouldn't have such a problem with this policy.

This seems to be another reason to give less to the needy, during a time when those with the most get more.

It just doesn't make any sense. Ideally, governments exist to provide for citizens, not to mobilize and take after them. If you have a problem with the poor using drugs, you figure out a way to help get the poor off drugs. Unrealistic? Sure, but conditioning welfare on clean drug tests only forces the drug addicts further into the shadows of society. That's bad for them; that's bad for everyone else.

The knowledge we've acquired from alternative drug policies, such as those in the Netherlands and Portugal, overwhelmingly suggest that the most important factor to fighting drug abuse is establishing a point of first contact. Drug testing welfare recipients destroys that point of first contact for addicts (the ones on welfare). Many addicted recipients will just walk away from the system because they're certain to fail. Others will fail and then walk away. And then they're off the map, virtually for good.

Again, if we want to scrap the whole system in the name of downsizing government, okay. I don't agree, but it's at least a coherent argument. To advocate spending money on drug testing when that money could be better spent on offering rehabilitation and therapy ... well now we're talking nonsense.

[Jeffy25]

I believe that is why more and more states are shifting to a debit card system as opposed to a check. I know if Virginia we use an EBT (electronic benefit transfer) card to do food stamps (and i imagine other things). I remember a commercial a while back where they said it costs 42 (i believe it was the printing costs plus the stamp price) to send out the checks and that it now costs less than (again this is my memory) a tenth of a cent to administer the benefits.

As long as you can still buy steak and lobster tail with it, it's not working lol.

Why not a check list of things that are accepted on this system as well? or too far?

[dbroncos78087]

As long as you can still buy steak and lobster tail with it, it's not working lol.

Why not a check list of things that are accepted on this system as well? or too far?

They do, i dont know what is on it but i know you cant buy things like wine and certain types of food (i believe) like lobster and steak.

From the VA DSS (Department of Social Services) website they have a FAQ that has this:

What can I buy with my Virginia EBT card?

You can buy the following items with your Virginia EBT card:
• Any food to be eaten at home by people, including baby food, non-alcoholic beverages, and seasonings.
• Seeds and plants to grow food for your own family’s consumption.

Food stamp purchases are not charged sales tax. You may use manufacturer’s cents-off coupons to reduce the cost of your groceries, but you will have to pay sales tax on the value of the coupons.

You cannot buy non-grocery items with the Virginia EBT card, such as cleaning products, pet food, paper products, alcohol, or tobacco. You will have to pay for those items with cash, by check, or a credit or debit card.

You cannot access cash from a grocery store or ATM with your Virginia EBT card.

That stuff makes sense to me. I dont know how other states work, but i dont believe you get enough where you could just go buy lobster and steak unless you want to starve for several days in a row afterwords. Most people i know who are or likely are on foodstamps are not looking to game the system in that way and are scrimping together everything they have on the foodstamps to make them last the entire month.

[Labgrownmangoat]

As long as you can still buy steak and lobster tail with it, it's not working lol.

Why not a check list of things that are accepted on this system as well? or too far?

As long as we want to put the same restrictions on recipients of Social Security, I'm all for it. Or would you grandmother think that was a little too intrusive? Being poor is not a moral issue, it's an economic one.

[jrice9]

As long as we want to put the same restrictions on recipients of Social Security, I'm all for it. Or would you grandmother think that was a little too intrusive? Being poor is not a moral issue, it's an economic one.

Social Security is different than welfare because its an investment (though more of a ponzi scheme but thats a side point and Im for both it and welfare)) while welfare is a handout.

If were giving people money (giving not paying back, not paying for work) just because they have had bad luck/bad decisions/bad siuations (which Im for) why cant we make sure their spending the money properly or at least that their not using it for illegal substances (for weed being legal but its a side point considering it is against the law whether we want it or not)

[Labgrownmangoat]

Social Security is different than welfare because its an investment (though more of a ponzi scheme but thats a side point and Im for both it and welfare)) while welfare is a handout.

If were giving people money (giving not paying back, not paying for work) just because they have had bad luck/bad decisions/bad siuations (which Im for) why cant we make sure their spending the money properly or at least that their not using it for illegal substances (for weed being legal but its a side point considering it is against the law whether we want it or not)

Medicare recipients? VA benefits? SSDI? Publicly educated people? Users of interstates? Any of those people going to have their private lives monitored by Big Brother also? They're all getting money, or its equivalent, as well. They might use the freeway to transport weed, after all. . .

It's intrusive, discriminatory and inappropriate to pick out one subset of those who benefit from the government and invasively monitor their personal affairs down to the level of the contents of their bodies.

[Raider_Vet]

How about helping these people get clean instead of kicking them to the curb? Just a thought.

[GGGGG-Men]

why cant we make sure their spending the money properly or at least that their not using it for illegal substances (for weed being legal but its a side point considering it is against the law whether we want it or not)

Because it's a high cost invasion of personal privacy. I simply don't trust the government's testing standards, do you?

They're better off just handing out gov't food instead of cash.

[Patsfan56]

How about helping these people get clean instead of kicking them to the curb? Just a thought.

That's exactly right. Its the right thing to do, and I have no idea what the savings in healthcare costs would be.

See, that would be like the Frosted Mini Wheats of politics. Helping people for the sweet side, saving money for the good for you side!

[GGGGG-Men]

I agree but then you get the same anti-welfare crew chanting "WHY DOES MY MONEY HAVE TO GO TO CLEAN UP THEIR DRUG PROBLEM?!?!"

People care as long as their wallets are unaffected.

[Raider_Vet]

That's exactly right. Its the right thing to do, and I have no idea what the savings in healthcare costs would be.

See, that would be like the Frosted Mini Wheats of politics. Helping people for the sweet side, saving money for the good for you side!

I have always felt drug abuse was a medical issue and not a criminal one. Look folks $ is a necessity and people who generaly abuse drugs come from poor backgrounds or have fallen from some kind of grace in life. I say give people a proper education so they can get a job after getting clean to help end whatever negative cycle of life they have been living in and help them get long term treatment. TRaking away their welfare will prove to be as effective as maditory minimums and the drug war of the past if you ask me and create more crime in the end.

[Raider_Vet]

I agree but then you get the same anti-welfare crew chanting "WHY DOES MY MONEY HAVE TO GO TO CLEAN UP THEIR DRUG PROBLEM?!?!"

People care as long as their wallets are unaffected.

If they only realized it's costing them either way GGGGG-Men.