mandatory drug testing for welfare.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Workers are not mind readers, nor are they lie detectors. Expert scum will lie and trick the welfare people.

These people will also fake out pee tests. There are plenty of ways to do that. Tests that are harder to fake out are also significantly more expensive.

Welfare workers can't solve any problem, but they solve more problems than "test 'em and toss 'em" can.

[Plaidman]

And an easy way not to be tossed?

DON'T FUCKING USE WELFARE FOR DRUGS!

Omg! What a concept! Don't use money that is meant to help you get back on your feet, pay your rent, put food on your table, help your kids, for illegal substances.

If you cannot get off drugs, despite welfare /trying/ to help them, you really belive it's best to just keep giving them money to buy more drugs because they'll turn to crime? They're already turned to crime by doing drugs.

You do know there is not an infinite amount of money to give out, right? There are thousands of people that need to get on welfare, but they are turned down for whatever reason. Hell, when I was homeless and living on the street stealing from dumpsters to eat, I was told I made too much money. I've seen others in worst conditions trying to get something to eat, and they get turned down because there isn't money to use for them.

But hey, to you, that's ok. Because the drug people get more money to pay for their drug fuel, because they're people that need help.

Other people need help, but you choose to ignore them.

What's the better person to give welfare to? The scum asswhipe that uses welfare to feed his drug habit, or the person who lost his job, home, got a divorce, and is trying to get his foot in the door and survive? He'd pay taxes most of their lives, they never done any major crimes, yet hey, no welfare for that person. Lets give that druggy welfare scum bucket more money to pay for his mounting drug abuse problem! Because it's just cheaper to do that rather then help the person who wouldn't abuse the system, seeing as having more people on welfare means more jobs to keep up. If no one is on welfare, no-one would have that job. Yay to helping cheaters!

[jackfaire]

These people will also fake out pee tests. There are plenty of ways to do that. Tests that are harder to fake out are also significantly more expensive.

Welfare workers can't solve any problem, but they solve more problems than "test 'em and toss 'em" can.

I am not advocating test them and toss them personally I am advocating they be forced into treatment. And no someone who is on welfare who is using it to fund their drug problem is not being helped.

[NodmiTheSellout]

I'm not saying to keep giving people welfare AFTER attempting to help them and they refuse to be helped. I'm saying, don't just test someone, get a positive, and kick them off, without offering help. Because yeah, there's no reason to support the drug habit of someone who refuses to work with the assistance being given them.

[Imprl59]

The conservative side of me says test welfare recipients and throw them off welfare if they continue to fail test.

But the realistic side doesn't agree. These people aren't going to simply evaporate if you take away the welfare checks. They will be homeless, addicted to drugs and have nothing to lose.

Drug treatment you say? Let's be realistic. If you take a well educated financially stable person with a good support system who want to get better and put them in rehab the recidivism rate is crazy. If you take another person who has no support system and nothing to look forward to what are the chances rehab is going to work for them? Why the heck would someone want to stop smoking pot when the only thing they have to forward to is poverty?

I think that instead of putting our limited resources in to fixing the broken people we should instead put them in to fixing the children before they can become broken too. How do we fix the education system so that we don't have kids graduating who can't read? How do we fix the mentality that having ten kids by ten women and not supporting any of them is cool? How do we give the welfare community hope of a better tomorrow? I would much rather see the money go to answering those questions than to testing someone that is already lost and doesn't want to be rehabilitated.

Steve B.

[jackfaire]

How do we give the welfare community hope of a better tomorrow? I would much rather see the money go to answering those questions than to testing someone that is already lost and doesn't want to be rehabilitated.

Steve B.

Simple we fix the adults. We drug test. We put them in treatment and we save everyone we can. We help them get cleaned up off of the drugs so that when they used the employment programs we have already set up for them they get the jobs and get back on their feet instead of failing that drug test, you know the one potential employers give.

Saying things like, Lets save the children, throw money at the children, fix the eduactional system.

I don't think there is now or ever an educational system that won't have kids skipping school to go down to the old fishing hole.

The biggest block with education is that we get kids who don't think the education matters. You can throw money at a child all you want but if his life experience is that no one gives a shit about the poor (his parents) he isn't going to believe you care about him.

You want to save the children then save their parents show them that we do actually care about people and we aren't just saying, "Screw them" and then trying to rush in and play hero to kids with half assed rhetoric before sending them home from school to their poor home where shopping for holy jeans at Goodwill is a necessity not a choice.

I saw the system help my mom and dad. I saw it feed us and give us a shot at life. I saw them help us get medical care and take care of my family.

If my dad had a drug problem we wouldn't have made it. He wouldn't have gone back to school he wouldn't have moved us from a small apartment in a small town where my old friends are now crackheads to the nice house I lived in while graduating highschool.

If they had told my dad to screw off and just threw money at us kids I would be bitter and cynical of the system.

Uhm yeah so uhm yeah *steps off his soapbox*

[LexiaFira]

Having lived in texas and living where I am now, LA (the state not the town) I have seen both sides of welfare. Not been on it. I have seen the abuse and I have seen those that truly need it get it but have also seen both sides denied as well. Some for valid reasons some for not. (IE denied because person is already wealthy by their standards or by some slim chance they just did not make it which is BS I don't know all the details)

I am all for drug testing but not piss in a cup, I mean take a hair or swab the mouth that isn't going to cost more in the long run as some pee tests can be messed with. Whatever you have taken comes out in your hair, the entire strand. Whatever you ate in the last 24 hours will be in your mouth.

I do suggest a cut off date for those that want a free ride and for those that honestly do want a job and ARE LOOKING but cannot find one. I would say if it was going to be done on the five year thing re-evaluate every year and if there is proof that said person isn't putting in effort start taking a little bit away but...eeh. That would mean having to go to their house and do investigations and in texas that would mean having to leave the precious desk for some of the government workers. Not saying all are bad but those that I DID encounter loved their desk job waaaay too much.

Disability should be separate but thats another rant

please, correct or point out where I am wrong I at least try to get facts straight

[jedimaster91]

One of the many problems with the welfare system is that it is far too large and unwieldy for one institution to handle. I'm all for drug testing for those who want welfare benefits, but that alone will not solve the problem. I think the system would work better if the federal government allocated money to the states and state agencies handled the claims. If that gets to be too much, the states can further delegate to individual counties, cities, or towns. It's a lot harder to fool a close-knit community than an impersonal government agency.

[Fryk]

Even if you don't agree with the "kick 'em off welfare" part of this, I don't see why anyone would disagree with testing for drugs. Surely another way to identify people with drug problems so they can get help isn't a bad thing.

[daleduke17]

Even if you don't agree with the "kick 'em off welfare" part of this, I don't see why anyone would disagree with testing for drugs. Surely another way to identify people with drug problems so they can get help isn't a bad thing.

Because, apparently, testing for drugs violates the law and can be discriminatory.

Even though I can be drug tested to get a job. Fucking druggies can't be drug tested to get welfare.

[jackfaire]

Because, apparently, testing for drugs violates the law and can be discriminatory.

Even though I can be drug tested to get a job. Fucking druggies can't be drug tested to get welfare.

Which is actually why some are on welfare. I have known functional people are on drugs that prefer it because of the fact they can keep their drugs on welfare but not on jobs.

[daleduke17]

Which is actually why some are on welfare. I have known functional people are on drugs that prefer it because of the fact they can keep their drugs on welfare but not on jobs.

So it needs to be changed to where welfare recipients are drug tested to be able to keep their benefits.

The questions that don't get answered are: what is different between a job drug testing employees and the state drug testing welfare recipients? How is one unconstitutional where the other isn't?

[NodmiTheSellout]

Because, apparently, testing for drugs violates the law and can be discriminatory.

Even though I can be drug tested to get a job. Fucking druggies can't be drug tested to get welfare.

Not all welfare recipients are "fucking druggies".

Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines[3] – rates that are in line with the drug use rates of the general population.[4]

In fact, I wish I'd found the linked article sooner, as it confirms my arguments about how it would be more fiscally responsible to put the money that would be used for drug testing into bettering the plans for welfare recipients. It goes into how questionnaires are often more effective than drug tests, and brings up a good point that I didn't consider--drug tests don't detect alcohol abuse, which is JUST AS BAD as abusing illegal substances.

[Fryk]

I don't think the number of druggies is as important here a in other places. At least not to me. All I wantto see is drug users identified for the purpose of offering them help. That's all.

And I am sure that the statistics would show that a minority of employed persons in the US are drug users. But that doesn't stop them from being drug tested.

[NodmiTheSellout]

OK, but, consider this. . .if you're to be at all fair with it (assuming that the court decision of such testing being unconstitutional is wrong, for this argument), you'd have to test everyone. A good 80-90% of these people WILL NOT test positive. But you still have to pay for the test itself, the people to administer it, the people to be sure of its confidentiality, etc. etc.. This adds up to a buttload of money. Yet, asking people to fill out a simple questionnaire is effective enough to compete with chemical testing, and CHEAPER. It competes because it catches alcoholism as well, which is probably a much larger problem among the poor than the abuse of illegal substances.

The main reason that drug testing is not done in this way, so far as I can tell, is money. And as concerns for money are what brings up this desire in the first place, what is more fiscally responsible should be considered the best option. I don't know what the fixation is on a chemical test. Chemical tests that are difficult to cheat are expensive, and I'm sure the kind of people complaining about the habits of those on welfare are the same people who would poop their pampers at the notion of a tax increase to pay for this.