Drug testing for welfare recipients

[GGGGG-Men]

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

ha good point. Suddenly a bill to legalize oxy cotin and coccaine for recreational use approves unanimously through the House and Senate....

[TRUTH-TELLER]

the fact weed is not legal and booze is shows how corrupt this country really is.

[Yendil]

the fact weed is not legal and booze is shows how corrupt this country really is.

The fact that people are too lazy to work and want constant hand outs without earning it shows more how corrupt this country is. Welfare was suppose to help those that may need some help, not support them.

[Labgrownmangoat]

The fact that people are too lazy to work and want constant hand outs without earning it shows more how corrupt this country is. Welfare was suppose to help those that may need some help, not support them.

Any evidence to back up this broad-brush slur, or just opinion untethered from facts?

[GGGGG-Men]

The fact that people are too lazy to work and want constant hand outs without earning it shows more how corrupt this country is. Welfare was suppose to help those that may need some help, not support them.

This is like saying we should get rid of prisons because 1% of the prisoners were wrongly convicted.

[cabernetluver]

This is like saying we should get rid of prisons because 1% of the prisoners were wrongly convicted.

That is frankly the best analogy about this I have ever seen. Abuse is always examined in an anecdotal way, but when held up against the overall program, it is always small in percentage. Bravo.

[MooseWithFleas]

$200 to a guy makes him less likely to be homeless, it makes him less likely to steal, makes him less likely to get angry at the government that keeps sending him checks.

It also makes him less likely to get a job.

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

Sure, but why should government spending do that? Private enterprise would be far more efficient (both financially and getting the desired results)

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.

Well, I don't go around speaking in bold caps now . I have compassion for those afflicted with drugs and would like them to get the needed treatment. Just because I want that though doesn't mean I can agree with forcing others to do so. Forced charity is not charity and in fact defames the nature of charity. I wonder how many people feel charitable on April 15th.

We are in agreement that the drug addicted people on welfare need help in the form of rehabilitation. We can't force others to take our stance though. And if we are, it is immoral.

[flips333]

It also makes him less likely to get a job.



Sure, but why should government spending do that? Private enterprise would be far more efficient (both financially and getting the desired results)




Well, I don't go around speaking in bold caps now . I have compassion for those afflicted with drugs and would like them to get the needed treatment. Just because I want that though doesn't mean I can agree with forcing others to do so. Forced charity is not charity and in fact defames the nature of charity. I wonder how many people feel charitable on April 15th.

We are in agreement that the drug addicted people on welfare need help in the form of rehabilitation. We can't force others to take our stance though. And if we are, it is immoral.

Let's be honest you have no clue aside from your personal thoughts about whether 200 bucks will make a homeless guy less likely to get a job... it could go in the other direction. A new set of clothes a hair cut a hotel room for the night to clean up... and there ya go easier to get a job. It's not like Oh **** here is 200 bucks I never need to earn money again.

Your second statement seems a little odd. How does private enterprise make money off of helping people?

I don't understand your point with the bottom statement. I might just not be getting it... but are you saying we can't force people into treatment? Yeah sure... but below it seems you are saying we can't force people to believe that people need treatment.

What I thiniK GGG was getting at was the hypocracy of people saying yeah we should help them... bu8t when it comes down to it what they mean is "someone besides me" should help them"

Poverty is a Societal, community, and personal problem. People want to drop it all on the personal level because of their "beliefs" then fine... but beliefs aren't necessarily true. I perfer to trust in science, social science, and medical science in this arena rather than some dude who is whining that the government is spending their hard earned tax dollars on someone else, while they take their homeowners tax credit. Well it's good for the society in general, and eventually it will be good for even you. These folks are just short sighted cause they refuse to see the interconnectedness of how policy affects our society.

Take my earlier example:
Why should my hard earned tax dollars go to homeowners just cause they can afford a house...? Because bought homes are good for the economy, and that creates jobs.
But I don't work in the construction field, why do this for the construction workers? Because if the construction workers have money they spend it on goods, which puts more money in the hands of business...
But I don't own stock, or work in the business field why do this for them? Because more money in the hands of buisness means more money in the hands of everyone, which means more tax dollars, which means more money for governmental grants for science. Bingo it's hit me.

A good governmental program should be like 6 degrees of Bacon. If you have half a brain you can follow it to you.

[flips333]

So I have actually done a little bit of drug treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy for Drug use in a research setting.... One of the most interesting bits of treatment I found was training folks to deal with relapse. The idea was to get people to understand that a lapse doesn't have to be a relapse.
So You've been clean for a month, and then you slip up smoke a hit of crack, drink a double scotch. Now are you dependent again? well hell no. But if this one mistake means you've failed in your mission, that you are completely off the wagon then why not just smoke some tomorrow, or get hammered You have already failed. It's really kind of common sense that you want people to understand they should do everything they can to stay completely clean, but that if a mistake happens then "how do you get back on track?"

Put this in this context, Let's say you are trying to put your life together and you make one mistake, then you lose your welfare. What do folks think will happen?

God this **** pisses me off.

[MooseWithFleas]

Let's be honest you have no clue aside from your personal thoughts about whether 200 bucks will make a homeless guy less likely to get a job...

This is simply untrue. There have been many expansive studies showing the time that people spend on welfare. Furthermore, a majority of those who do get off welfare end up going back on it within a very short period of time (35-45% percent within a year, 65-75% within 4 years is the statistic I see thrown around a lot).

Your second statement seems a little odd. How does private enterprise make money off of helping people?

They don't. I am talking about the successful non-profit private charities, which are much more efficient with their resources.

I don't understand your point with the bottom statement. I might just not be getting it... but are you saying we can't force people into treatment? Yeah sure... but below it seems you are saying we can't force people to believe that people need treatment.

I'm not saying we can't. I'm saying I don't agree.

Again, I can agree with a simple statement reiterated in this thread. There are many drug users who need treatment to help correct their lives. What I can not agree with is:

1.) Forcing drug users to get the treatment if they don't want it.
2.) Forcing others to pay for the treatment of drug users.

What I thiniK GGG was getting at was the hypocracy of people saying yeah we should help them... bu8t when it comes down to it what they mean is "someone besides me" should help them"

So basically there are a lot of people that think "There are a lot of people that need help, but I can't spend my time or money to do it". Again, nothing significantly wrong with pursuing one's own separate interests. There are many ridiculously wealthy people who spend their money uselessly when they could be helping the situation. I frown upon them, but still, would never force them to give up their money for a cause they don't support.

The people that really want to make a difference and help out will form a private charity and attempt to accomplish that goal. I wouldn't have it any other way, as the ones who are most dedicated to eradicating the problem are the ones likely to best use their resources to solve it.

[flips333]

This is simply untrue. There have been many expansive studies showing the time that people spend on welfare. Furthermore, a majority of those who do get off welfare end up going back on it within a very short period of time (35-45% percent within a year, 65-75% within 4 years is the statistic I see thrown around a lot).

This doesn't give you the ability to say it makes them less likely or more likely to get a job. Less likely that whom? People who don't need welfare? A study of what folks do with welfare money does not tell you what they would do without it. It's simple science... to answer the question you would need 2 groups. One that doesn't receive welfare and one that does, then you compare.
What a study like the one you are reporting tells you is that people who are deeply in poverty stay that way by and large. Which makes sense. Poverty is difficult to get out of. Even by your bootstraps. But again we don't have a comparison group to determine the effectiveness of welfare.

BTW this study would likely not be able to be done as it wouldn't pass the ethical boards.

They don't. I am talking about the successful non-profit private charities, which are much more efficient with their resources.

And there are enough of those that will serve all of America. And you are sure they are more efficient? And you are sure they won't push their religion on folks? I know plenty of folks seeking drug treatment that have a hard time finding affordable treatment where Jesus isn't jammed down their throat. Which can be detrimental to your treatment if you are an athiest.

I'm not saying we can't. I'm saying I don't agree.

Again, I can agree with a simple statement reiterated in this thread. There are many drug users who need treatment to help correct their lives. What I can not agree with is:

1.) Forcing drug users to get the treatment if they don't want it.
2.) Forcing others to pay for the treatment of drug users.

So basically there are a lot of people that think "There are a lot of people that need help, but I can't spend my time or money to do it". Again, nothing significantly wrong with pursuing one's own separate interests. There are many ridiculously wealthy people who spend their money uselessly when they could be helping the situation. I frown upon them, but still, would never force them to give up their money for a cause they don't support.

The people that really want to make a difference and help out will form a private charity and attempt to accomplish that goal. I wouldn't have it any other way, as the ones who are most dedicated to eradicating the problem are the ones likely to best use their resources to solve it.

So it's OK to force people to spend their money on tax breaks for the wealthy, for people to have other medical services, for the national parks, for tear gas sent to other countries, and so on, but not this particular medical service for the poor. OK... But that just seems silly to me.

[MooseWithFleas]

This doesn't give you the ability to say it makes them less likely or more likely to get a job. Less likely that whom? People who don't need welfare? A study of what folks do with welfare money does not tell you what they would do without it. It's simple science... to answer the question you would need 2 groups. One that doesn't receive welfare and one that does, then you compare.
What a study like the one you are reporting tells you is that people who are deeply in poverty stay that way by and large. Which makes sense. Poverty is difficult to get out of. Even by your bootstraps. But again we don't have a comparison group to determine the effectiveness of welfare.

BTW this study would likely not be able to be done as it wouldn't pass the ethical boards.



And there are enough of those that will serve all of America. And you are sure they are more efficient? And you are sure they won't push their religion on folks? I know plenty of folks seeking drug treatment that have a hard time finding affordable treatment where Jesus isn't jammed down their throat. Which can be detrimental to your treatment if you are an athiest.



So it's OK to force people to spend their money on tax breaks for the wealthy, for people to have other medical services, for the national parks, for tear gas sent to other countries, and so on, but not this particular medical service for the poor. OK... But that just seems silly to me.

Posting from droid so forgive the unorganized post here.

If you want to argue the effectiveness of welfare we can but I just don't see any way the system could be looked at as a success.

To the last point: what gave you the idea thy I thought those things are okay? I am strongly against everyone of those forced expenditures that you mentioned.

[flips333]

Posting from droid so forgive the unorganized post here.

If you want to argue the effectiveness of welfare we can but I just don't see any way the system could be looked at as a success.

To the last point: what gave you the idea thy I thought those things are okay? I am strongly against everyone of those forced expenditures that you mentioned.

I also don't think it can't been seen as a failure till we know what America would look like without it. There is no comparison to be made... if 25-30% of folks get out of poverty with welfare's help... then dear lord it probably is working. Not as well as we would like but hey 30-35%, when one considers the problem of poverty, then that doesn't seem like a drop in the bucket. I'd be willing to bet you that people who get unemployment are more likely to get unemployment again as well, doesn't mean we should do away with the system.
There are ways of improving the welfare system, one of my first posts when I discovered this politics section was just such a post... but back to the point, drug testing isn't one of them. Will cost more than it saves, will harm people trying to better themselves, will harm folks who didn't use drugs (urine tests give all sorts of false positives), doesn't respect folks privacy. And from my stand point seems, well... UnAmerican.

As to the last point... well if you are into doing away with most of the government then the little that is spent on poor people's drug treatment is probably way down on the list.

I open the floor to let you have the last word cause I think we've come full circle.

[jrice9]

This is like saying we should get rid of prisons because 1% of the prisoners were wrongly convicted.

Is it really 1%?

Im curious does anyone know?>

[flips333]

Is it really 1%?

Im curious does anyone know?>

Hard to say right? If we knew for sure who was wrongly convicted they wouldn't be in jail. How many folks in jail have the money to afford serious appeals...?

Where you can get a taste is on death row, because those folks often get some serious pro-bono (SP?) lawyers. And in Illinois, my home state, they executed less people (12) than they let out (18). That's not to say that all 18 were innocent, just that they shouldn't have been convicted. I'm not suggesting that over 50% are wrongly convicted, but I'd guess 1% is probably low balling it.