Drug testing for welfare recipients

[WES445]

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.

We will never treat drug addiction as social problem like the Netherlands or Europe in general. I agree with the Dutch, and I'm sure others do to. We have build such a huge industry on being brutal on drug addicts, that don't see us changing the national policies on it. The prisons, DEA, and various other agencies make money on this Drug War that we are losing. They have lied about European success with their problem. Feed the american public fear bruger on the threat to america society if we get soft with drugs by using European touchy feely social programs to treat it. Face it, most crimes are drug related as prison stat. bear out. The penal system is even looking into using inmates as cheap labor. They are digging in and building for the future. It's a mindset that will never consider seeing the drug war as a social problem instead of a crime problem. It not even about winning the Drug war, but keeping this mindset torwards drugs.

I don't know, but I get the feeling that this more about cutting people off from getting benefits then punishing drug users. We all know we are running in the red and need to cut somewhere. You have to admitted going after drug users on welfare is a easy target, with no blowback to worry about. This made be the first salvo torwards cutting social programs and maybe eventually the third rail, social security programs.

[North Country]

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 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.

I'm a case worker for individuals with a dual diagnosis (mental illness as well as a drug or alcohol dependency). This would be a terrible idea. If we took away welfare from drug addicts they'd either magically become clean and get a job or engage in illegal activities such as robbery or drug dealing in order to raise money to buy more drugs. Like it or not, if we didn't provide welfare to drug addicts, crime rates would skyrocket. The whole reason welfare was created in the first place wasn't because we care so deeply about poor people, drug addicts or the mentally ill but rather to stabalize society and placate them.

[North Country]

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?

People who think a person on welfare is living off of steak and lobster tail are fooling themselves. Someone on SSI and SSD where I live usually makes about $700 a month. If they're lucky and have a really great rental subsidy and they get HEAP, they pay about $300-400 of that in rent and electricity. Most people on welfare don't get both SSI and SSD and don't have a nice rental subsidy.

And if we were to create a check list, who gets to decide what poor people are and aren't allowed to eat? They're not children and the government isn't their parents.

[Jeffy25]

People who think a person on welfare is living off of steak and lobster tail are fooling themselves. Someone on SSI and SSD where I live usually makes about $700 a month. If they're lucky and have a really great rental subsidy and they get HEAP, they pay about $300-400 of that in rent and electricity. Most people on welfare don't get both SSI and SSD and don't have a nice rental subsidy.

And if we were to create a check list, who gets to decide what poor people are and aren't allowed to eat? They're not children and the government isn't their parents.

when I worked at a local grocery store in high school (awhile ago now) you could easily buy alcohol and whatever food you wanted, including smokes.

And a friend working at wal-mart on another forum just said you could still buy these things.

And our rental houses bring in direct rent from HUD....and it's sometimes to the tune of 850-1000 a month for a family (one house).

[Raider_Vet]

I'm a case worker for individuals with a dual diagnosis (mental illness as well as a drug or alcohol dependency). This would be a terrible idea. If we took away welfare from drug addicts they'd either magically become clean and get a job or engage in illegal activities such as robbery or drug dealing in order to raise money to buy more drugs. Like it or not, if we didn't provide welfare to drug addicts, crime rates would skyrocket. The whole reason welfare was created in the first place wasn't because we care so deeply about poor people, drug addicts or the mentally ill but rather to stabalize society and placate them.

People who think a person on welfare is living off of steak and lobster tail are fooling themselves. Someone on SSI and SSD where I live usually makes about $700 a month. If they're lucky and have a really great rental subsidy and they get HEAP, they pay about $300-400 of that in rent and electricity. Most people on welfare don't get both SSI and SSD and don't have a nice rental subsidy.

And if we were to create a check list, who gets to decide what poor people are and aren't allowed to eat? They're not children and the government isn't their parents.

when I worked at a local grocery store in high school (awhile ago now) you could easily buy alcohol and whatever food you wanted, including smokes.

And a friend working at wal-mart on another forum just said you could still buy these things.

And our rental houses bring in direct rent from HUD....and it's sometimes to the tune of 850-1000 a month for a family (one house).

If this is true and I doubt it is then your local merchants need to be punished by the law for alowing people to do this. I honestly think your statement is not true.

[corralski]

when I worked at a local grocery store in high school (awhile ago now) you could easily buy alcohol and whatever food you wanted, including smokes.

And a friend working at wal-mart on another forum just said you could still buy these things.

And our rental houses bring in direct rent from HUD....and it's sometimes to the tune of 850-1000 a month for a family (one house).

I witnessed in California that a large denomination food stamp would be used and then they would use the change to buy their other stuff. Now the cashier takes the book and uses the smallest coupon to make the purchase so there is minimal change.

I suppose use of the ATM card would eliminate the change but now we have documented use of the cards at machines in the Indian casinos and strip clubs...

[Jeffy25]

If this is true and I doubt it is then your local merchants need to be punished by the law for alowing people to do this. I honestly think your statement is not true.

I hate to break it to you, this wasn't mad up

[Patsfan56]

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.

I think you are largely right. If someone gets busted for posession, to me there is no need to put them in a prison with violent criminals. Yes, a penalty should be levied for breaking the law, but treatment should be considered paramount to get the person clean and back into contributing to society again. Maybe those non violent penalties should be more oriented to community service?

[TRUTH-TELLER]

hell no. how about drug testing for politicians.

[Patsfan56]

hell no. how about drug testing for politicians.

This is an EXCELLENT point.

Once the politicians are regularly and thoroughly drug tested, then they can start demanding it of anyone else, be they welfare recipiants, baseball players, or anybody really.

Actually, they should be drug tested and polygraphed regularly.

[behindmydesk]

I hate to break it to you, this wasn't mad up

But is it the welfare recipients fault completely that your local merchant is breaking the law?

[Jenceman]

This is an EXCELLENT point.

Once the politicians are regularly and thoroughly drug tested, then they can start demanding it of anyone else, be they welfare recipiants, baseball players, or anybody really.

Actually, they should be drug tested and polygraphed regularly.

I agree with this 100%.

[GGGGG-Men]

This is an EXCELLENT point.

Once the politicians are regularly and thoroughly drug tested, then they can start demanding it of anyone else, be they welfare recipiants, baseball players, or anybody really.

Actually, they should be drug tested and polygraphed regularly.

In reference to the topic I like it, but overall I don't agree, only because I don't agree with the gov't's definition on what illegal drugs are.

[WES445]

This is an EXCELLENT point.

Once the politicians are regularly and thoroughly drug tested, then they can start demanding it of anyone else, be they welfare recipiants, baseball players, or anybody really.

Actually, they should be drug tested and polygraphed regularly.

and fingerprinted

[Patsfan56]

In reference to the topic I like it, but overall I don't agree, only because I don't agree with the gov't's definition on what illegal drugs are.

Me too. Maybe this would provide some "incentive" for them to fix it!!