mandatory drug testing for welfare.

[Plaidman]

Not really rebel. They just sell them to other people for half cash value. That's why they got rid of the paper and went to plastic.


Amanita? Do a google search. At time of rescue, the 19 year old boy weighed 40 lbs.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCente...1611693&page=1

Here's one of the stories of the trial.

[fireheart17]

Drug testing would be a good idea for people on welfare.
And it'd be best make it so they have to be retested every couple of months (too often isn't practical, too few makes it easy to slip through the cracks).

In Australia (at least where I lived) you had to be an active job searcher (2 jobs applied to a week) to be eligible. You also had to show proof of a low income fairly often for any other sort of financial help.

Another way to to it was to get people to 'Work for the Dole'. This is where jobs that are usually ignored or avoided (trash pickup, sand dune maintenance, etc) would be done by people who are 'unable' to find a permanent job. They would have to clock in a certain number of hours a week to be eligible for their welfare check.

Less chance both of these ways for people to stay on welfare, laze about, and spend their money on drugs and booze.

EDIT: The 2nd idea is for reasonably healthy people on welfare. It would obviously be different for people with permanent serious disabilities.

They still do those down in my part of Ausland.

Basically, there are four forms of "welfare" you can use in this state at a minimum for job-seeking/study:

"Youth Allowance" (for 16-25(?) year olds who are studying, maybe on an apprenticeship or have a bunch of other circumstances that make them eligible. If they aren't studying, they need to be job-hunting DIRECTLY through Centrelink (welfare office).
"Austudy" same thing, but for 25+ year olds.

With youth allowance, the amount you're paid depends on whether or not you have a part-time/casual job (and you can still have youth allowance while you're working as long as you don't work over a certain number of hours-for some uni students, this is the ONLY way they can survive), whether or not you're married, whether or not you've left home and whether or not you have kids...a couple actually did do a marriage of "conveinience" as a protest to get the male's Youth Allowance up. (I'll find the article when I have time )

The other two are:

Abstudy: not too sure of the age bracket, but it's ONLY for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders and you are required to be studying or job-seeking.
Newstart: the job-seeking one for 25 and over.

And as you're required to submit proof that you have been job-searching to Centrelink, which does not involve just a form, it also involves having to show a resume and cover letter copy as proof. We do not require managers to sign forms to state that they've been job-hunting. If the job requires an online application, they're required to give the job number as well.


EDIT: I also forgot to add, that the major supermarkets in this state run two schemes for customers who legitimately need it.

The first is a card that's marked as being "for groceries." They're usually in amounts of $10-$100. Customers can't use them to buy alcohol or tobacco products. Apparaently when the scheme first came out, it was similar to the WIC programs I hear about, but since then, they've relaxed it. Doesn't stop people from buying stuff, then returning it straight away. (as they're clearly marked, they can't be used at the liquor stores)
The second is actually government-funded. Customers are given a limit that they're required to adhere to (between $50-$400 usually) and then the paperwork is processed at the front desk.

[NodmiTheSellout]

With the unlawful thing, I'll be blunt: I don't know, exactly. Luckily, I don't have to. The supreme courts of the states involved do know, though, because they've found it unconstitutional. It probably has to do with the nature of welfare vs. the nature of at-will employment.

As for your anecdotes. . .that's nice. People are jerks. That doesn't prove that welfare never helps the children of addicts, ever, not even once. In fact it's ridiculous to assume that the people YOU SEE are the most common examples of people - even of drug addicts - on public assistance. Most people try to hide drug addiction. When it's that bad, they're a truly special, shitty case.

Go on and tell me why assigning case workers to welfare recipients isn't the better option. These people can do more for someone than go "BZZT, FAIL!! Have fun starving, druggie!" They can help them find assistance in getting over their addiction, help them find gainful employment, etc.. Not to mention that it's cheaper to do this than perform drug tests on everyone.

Overall no one should encourage a government policy that gives up on the most needy segments of the population. Particularly not when it actually works out better for all involved NOT to do that. People who are as hell-bent on acting like massive jerks as the ones you're talking about will find ways to do it whether it involves government welfare or not. If meetings with case workers were mandatory every few months, it'd curb that sort of thing much better than tossing them off public assistance would. Toss them off public asssistance and they're off the radar, there's no reason for them to see any sort of authority figure ever unless someone sees mistreatment and calls the cops/CPS (which people are often too afraid to do). No welfare? OK, they can sell drugs, pimp their daughters, shoplift as a profession, etc.. If they're shitty enough to poison their kids, they're shitty enough to make money in whatever way they see possible (except getting a decent job, apparently. . .because people with good jobs NEVER mistreat ANYONE, right?).

[Plaidman]

And your point? Do drug testing on them. If they're doing drugs using welfare, they need to complete a program to get clean to keep getting welfare. If they refuse, and just wanna do drugs, then take kids away and put them in homes where they wont have grow up with drug addict parents.

Not all welfares are cheats. I'm well aware of that. Mom used welfare, and not a single penny of it went to her drug habits. I'm not saying she didn't sell her food stamps, but that was to get cash to buy clothes, animal food, toys for me, school supplies.

But if someone is only using welfare for drugs, which alot do, and refuse to get help for it? Why the fuck should we keep paying them to do drugs? That makes no sense at all. If your so gungho on keeping people with their drug money, go give homeless people bottles of booze, so that's all your really doing with any welfare you might give them.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Probably should've mentioned that that's the context you'd want drug testing in, then. Rather than comparing it to drug-testing for a job, which is pretty much, "You're positive? FAIL." I still think the actual testing would not be necessary though, since meeting with a social worker often enough will likely reveal problems. . .people crafty enough to trick a social worker into thinking they have a healthy home would probably also be crafty enough to fake a drug test. And again, assigning actual PEOPLE to help with the lives of PEOPLE = not only more compassionate, but CHEAPER than paying for lab work multiple times per year.

I think the whole "MAKE THEM TAKE A DRUG TEST" thing just has this weird vibe to it, like drug users are soulless animals who do nothing but hurt everything around them, there's no helping them, yadda yadda.

[daleduke17]

Welfare is the same as at-will employment. You voluntarily apply for it, get approved (hired) and then stay on it for as long as you deem needed. So, why not make the people pass a drug test? State employees have to. Welfare recipients are basically state employees as they receive money from the government. So, drug test them. Give them three strikes.

First fail: mandatory meeting with an adviser every other week for six weeks. Drug test at the end to see if there is any further usage (failing this would be second fail).

Second fail: meet with an adviser every week for six weeks, suspension of benefits (or proration of benefits) for two weeks. Drug test at the end (this would be the third fail).

Third fail: immediate suspension/revocation of benefits.

Any drug present other than drugs that one is prescribed for would count as a fail over set standards. The three strikes would be on a rolling twelve month period as well.

State saves money, taxpayers save money (in theory), and help clean areas up.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Welfare is the same as at-will employment. You voluntarily apply for it, get approved (hired) and then stay on it for as long as you deem needed.

The courts don't see it that way.

So, why not make the people pass a drug test? State employees have to. Welfare recipients are basically state employees as they receive money from the government. So, drug test them. Give them three strikes.

[...]

State saves money, taxpayers save money (in theory), and help clean areas up.

Because it's unnecessary, and your conclusion is false. Not only is it unconstitutional to test everyone, it is expensive. People need to be paid to administer the test, other people need to be paid to transport, other people need to be paid to do the actual lab work, etc. etc.. There's a lot of expense in administering tests, and there are a lot of people applying for welfare, particularly in this economy. So, less people working = less tax money, and also = more demand for public assistance. Again--meetings with actual people are cheaper and are likely just as, if not more, effective, because they can put compassion into the equation, and address problems other than drug use (which may be linked to it).

[KitterCat]

Originally Posted by daleduke17
Welfare is the same as at-will employment. You voluntarily apply for it, get approved (hired) and then stay on it for as long as you deem needed.

NodmiTheSellout
The courts don't see it that way.

The courts seem to see it that way only because they haven’t figured out loophole to legally justify it. Such as what they’ve done with drunk driving stops, or suspicious activity searches. Heck watch an episode of cops, those guys will/can search your car even if you don’t give consent. So long as they can give a reason in court to look they will. Why people who have willingly gone onto the government hand out cant be forced to do something as simple as a drug test shouldn’t be an issue.

As for how much it costs. I cant vouch for every lab, but my Hubbie works for a major lab that does drug screens as well as blood work. Cost is about $25. They actually lose money in the time it takes to do them verses what they‘d be paid for blood work. Since everything is picked up at the same time, by the same couriers you don’t have to worry about transport cost. Urinalysis test are the standard since it’s the cheapest ($25). Blood tests are a bit more pricey at around $100 and its almost impossible to find anyone who wants/or is willing to run a hair follicle test around $1500. Actual lab work on a urinalysis is pretty easy. The same dip test you buy in a head shop is what they use in the lab. If you can read the little line that appears your ok. About the only legal part is making sure there’s a form of custody going with the sample.

You point out that Less people working = less tax money. If the people who are on welfare cant abide by a simple rule of staying off drugs why are we giving them part of that tax money? It may be cruel, but maybe a bit of harshness is what some of them need. Follow the rules and you get X, don’t and you’re out on your own. I’ve got to do it myself for my own job, why shouldn’t welfare recipients?

[NodmiTheSellout]

Except harshness is the rule behind most drug policy already in effect and, well, you see how well that's working, don't you?

[Greenday]

Follow the rules and you get X, don’t and you’re out on your own. I’ve got to do it myself for my own job, why shouldn’t welfare recipients?

Sounds like parole. I like it.

[NodmiTheSellout]

I just. . .don't get the utter lack of compassion, here. Or the failure to acknowledge that compassionate policies WORK BETTER than "tough love" or whatever the hell you want to call the "misbehaving? FUCK 'EM!" policies like this would be.

OK. Welfare is supposed to support those disadvantaged by various forces. For whatever reason, they can't find work, or can't find work that supports them. Falling into drug addiction may be one of these reasons. I am not saying that it is the job of the government to pay for an addict's drugs. But, if someone's an addict, with no financial means, with no emotional support, etc. etc.. . .what fucking good would cutting off their ability to live in a home, buy food, etc., do? They'd either die, or turn to dealing drugs themselves, thievery, etc., to support themselves as well as their habit. Drug addicts are human beings, who can contribute to the world, they're not. . .creatures to be exterminated. Not every drug addict is the shitty example given in this thread, and addiction changes people in horrible ways, even so. Drug addicts need HELP, not to be thrown away for failing a piss test.

As for the costs. . .one test may be minimal. Multiple tests, on the huge number of people applying for welfare? Not so much. This isn't something I've pulled out of my ass--states who've considered this and not implimented this have drawn that conclusion. Not to mention that the cheapness of the tests you're assuming is the cheapness of initial tests, which are only cheap if they are negative. Get a positive result, and have fun with all the backlash when someone's livelihood is reduced down to what their pee does to a pH strip, because doing follow-up tests to ascertain the validity of the results is too expensive.

I just don't understand why people are so fixated on a piss test instead of a social worker, when the social worker is cheaper, more effective, and more compassionate (as a general rule anyway; humans at least have the capacity to want to help fellow humans, which isn't true of a test result).

[jackfaire]

I don't think it's a lack of compassion it's a lack of wanting to feed drug addicts who don't want to be anything else.

There are addicts that do well in the system they get clean they get a home and so on. Then there are the addicts who love doing drugs.

They don't want a home or a job or anything else but they will take our money so us "suckers' can keep paying them to spend their lives however they wish.

There should be policies in place to weed out those that are just working the system so that they can be supported by the rest of us. You can tell when someone truly wants to get better and when someone just doesn't care.

[NodmiTheSellout]

OK. . .I'm not saying those people don't exist. But, saying "DRUG TESTS!!" in favor of social workers throws out the people who could be helped, as well as those who refuse to be. Using both would just be a waste of money.

[jackfaire]

Using both would just be a waste of money.

Why? Part of receiving welfare should be about getting you to the most functional you can be. This for drug addicts should include treatment done with addictions counselors and social workers.

Counseling them is useless if they are still using because then you only have their word for it that they are not using anymore. This is not effective and is a drain on resources.

Welfare is meant to help people recover not to give a free ride to people.

If a teacher believes a student did his homework and the dog ate it and gives him an A because he tells her it was just that good we would be up in arms about how unfair that is to the other students who work to get ahead and who are held to standards.

I agree we need to hold people in need to the same standards that the rest of us are held to. I occasionally need public assistance and I use it to get back on my feet not to prop them up on the furniture.

[Plaidman]

There are lots of reasons why Welfare workers could help. There are also lots of reasons they don't.

Prime reason that several don't care. When your backup with thousands of people that need that assistance, your going to have to hire people just to keep up. There no proof that every worker will do everything in their power to help. There have been stories of welfare workers and offices being swamp with calls to help someone, and they ignore it, or when they do go to check, they just take a glance and leave. Two stories come to mind, one of the latest rescue stories had a woman that was kidnap as a child and repeatedly raped. She was held in the backyard tied up and such. The person doing the raping was on welfare. Welfare saw said lady being tied up, and belived the person when he said it was just a game.

Another one, was a foster child. Everyone in the neighborhood was yelling and screaming at the office that she was being abused. She had marks on her all the time. Eventally the foster dad murderered her for fun. The welfare admits yeah, they got calls. They claim they did checks.

Workers are not mind readers, nor are they lie detectors. Expert scum will lie and trick the welfare people. They can claim they're doing drug rehab. They may even have papers saying they show up. Doesn't prove that they haven't quit doing drugs, nor are they using the welfare to buy more drugs.

Workers are also bribeable. They don't make alot of money. The job is definitly for the helping others part. But some (and there been news stories of people being busted, but only after years of bribes). They do it for money. They do it for free drugs from the welfare people themselves. One let a couple get tons of welfare, by lying and helping them, to have sex with their 16 year old daughter.

Your acting like welfare workers can help and solve any problem. Just like the welfare cheating scum, there are welfare people who just don't give a damn ether, and just give out money, be it they just don't want to do work, or that they hate goverment and want them to lose money, that they think it's funny, or in some cases, praying and hoping said drug user just OD's and dies so it's one less case.