mandatory drug testing for welfare.

[jedimaster91]

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.

If the government itself were more fiscally responsible, it may not have to raise taxes. But that's a different arguement altogether.

[Dasota]

I'd like to know where the line is drawn with the Drug testing.

My mom was a herion addict for YEARS, and used many other drugs with it, like pot for example.

To me, these are 2 extremes on the scale.

Do I think someone who smokes pot should get kicked off of welfare because they tested positive? Hell no. It's fucking stressful being on welfare and having to raise a kid as well as your wife who is a drug addict in really bad way.

^My dad, who did everything he could to make sure I had food on the table, clothes on my back, a roof over my head, and a few toys. I don't begrudge him at all for taking 20 bucks here or there and waiting till I went to bed to get high and try to relax.

My mom too actually always made sure I had what I needed, but she also would pawn off a lot of crap of hers, or my dad's for that matter to support her habit.

Of the two? Yes, I think my dad should have been able to get welfare when it was needed, my mom? Fuck no.

[jackfaire]

My parents worked their assess off on welfare and never turned to drugs or alcohol to relax my dad even quit smoking while on welfare.

Unfortunatly a lot of people slip through the cracks for a lot of things they shouldn't. A reward system for reporting people would be good the reward contingent on the tip being a good one for example you see someone walk out of the welfare office that you know just got assistance climb into a brand new lexus. Should be a tip line to call.

[FArchivist]

Well, that drug testing for welfare recipients has just worked out SO well.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

If the ACLU or anyone else were to challenge the law, the lawsuit would likely succeed. As UCLA law professor Adam Winkler wrote after Scott signed the law, “Random drug-testing is what is known as a ‘suspicion-less search,’” and outside of a few limited instances, courts have “generally frowned upon” drug testing that occurs at random and without probable cause. “Indeed, courts have stuck down policies just like the ones put in place by Florida,” Winkler wrote, citing two cases to back up the claim. Case One. Case Two.

[Andara Bledin]

A lot of money going into his his wife's pockets for almost no gain to the state.

And a huge loss of both money and time when it has to defend a law that will more than likely be stricken once properly challenged.

^-.-^

[Sleepwalker]

I’ve got to do it myself for my own job, why shouldn’t welfare recipients?

Because it costs the state additional money, does not improve outcomes, and is irrelevant to the aid they are receiving. You are drug tested because it affects your job, you are not drug tested for 'moral' reasons. If the state is not liable for what the person does with their welfare, and it costs more money to drug test than not to, there is no rational reason to drug test.

You have a problem some months with buying shit you don't need, which makes it hard to pay rent. Therefore, whenever you buy something you don't need, take an additional twenty out of your wallet, set it on fire and piss on the ashes. Problem solved!

[Fire_on_High]

Because it costs the state additional money, does not improve outcomes, and is irrelevant to the aid they are receiving. You are drug tested because it affects your job, you are not drug tested for 'moral' reasons. If the state is not liable for what the person does with their welfare, and it costs more money to drug test than not to, there is no rational reason to drug test.

Yes, there is. PUNISHMENT. Someone turns up positive, deny them the assistance.

No, I don't want to hear a sob story about their kids, or what they'll lose. If they can afford drugs, if they decide to use them if offered, whatever their reason for not following the law, if they get caught, make it hurt plenty.

If they're really that upset about what it does to the kids, maybe next time they'll think before taking a rip off a joint, or spend their cash on the kids instead of drugs. They SHOULD be grateful it's not an automatic trip to prison.

[FArchivist]

Yes, there is. PUNISHMENT. Someone turns up positive, deny them the assistance.

OK, I understand that viewpoint.

So, in reference to the links and data I posted, you would say that it is worth it to punish those using drugs and save the state $40-60K...at the cost of $180+ million to the taxpayers?

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, no, the taxpayers wouldn't be losing that $180+ million; that would be thousands of kids going hungry because the money that would have gone to feed them is going into the pockets of some drug testing facility, instead.

But at least the anti-druggie people have their righteous anger to keep them warm. Which they'll probably need, because if any of them are close to the already ridiculous cut-off line for assistance, they're the ones who're going to end up paying for this ill-advised venture.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

what if instead of testing for drugs, have a middle area. if someone on social assistance gets convicted for drug-related crime (or hell any crime), then revoke their assistance. after all, not having assistance won't make them turn to crime, since they already have.
plus it saves the state doing drug-tests because all they need is the record of conviction.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, come now, Siead, that's far too rational. We can't have that.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

Another suggestion would be to have all welfare come in the form of food vouchers which cannot be used to purchase anything else. It would not completely eliminate the instances of welfare being used for drugs (determined people will always find a way around that), but it would lower them.

I haven't read anything else but I do like that idea. EXCEPT that I know some people WILL resell the food for a profit.

If you don't believe me go to www.peopleoffoodstamps.com




I'm personally thinking of something I read over at PFB jsut now... one of the users pointed out that TAXPAYERS pay for all the "RIGHTS" that people on welfare are promoting.

The right to be a baby-factory because welfare payments are per-child.
the right to spend their money on drugs while everyone else chips in to give them a better quality of life?


Welfare is suppose to be a hand-up to get yourself OUT of the situation. But people are using it as a means of life. We need to STOP ignoring that truth just because it might not be "politically correct."



Perhaps this should be my signature... something I read from Starship Troopers:

The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand - that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights'.

We all talk about Entitlement Whores over at CS, people who expect the retail world to bow down and kiss their feet, to get everything on discount yadda yadda yadda... because they're "entitled" to it.


But really what's the biggest entitlement issue out there? People who expect to have whatever luxury they want, drugs, booze ... on OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. THAT'S entitlement. Expecting to keep your lifestyle the same, expecting to hold on to your right to get stoned... and have everyone else chip in to cover your expenses and bills.

And if someone dares say anything against that, then the card start getting played. The you-hate-all-poor card, or racism card, or you-hate-whatever card. Cos again... it's all about "their rights" herp derp.

[Andara Bledin]

The right to be a baby-factory because welfare payments are per-child.

They've done studies and found that the baby factories want to be baby factories and any money is completely irrelevant to their continuing to do so. They actually took money away from some of them for having additional kids, and it didn't stop them from pumping them out. Turns out there are just some demographics that like being baby mommas no matter how irresponsible and selfish that is.

Welfare is suppose to be a hand-up to get yourself OUT of the situation. But people are using it as a means of life. We need to STOP ignoring that truth just because it might not be "politically correct."

Yes, the system isn't working properly. The problem is that we don't currently have anything better on tap without getting over the stupid-ass irrational fear of "socialist" policies that the freaks on the right like to pound into the heads of anyone that'll listen.

And if someone dares say anything against that, then the card start getting played.

I'd just as soon have all the freeloaders, drug-abusers (including fucking booze-hounds), et al off the programs and on their own, but until we can find a way to toss the bathwater, sans baby, we're going to have to work with the systems we have in place and stop burning innocents in our hunt for abusers.

Because that's what's at the heart of the objections to mandatory, self-funded drug tests to get on welfare; it's the innocent people who get hurt the most.

It's easy to sit in our houses, pounding away on our computers, railing about how there are some have-nots who don't deserve to have what they're getting, but when you find yourself living out of your fucking car and scrounging cans out of dumpsters to get even a single meal a day, a drug test is the price of a week's worth of food.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

but until we can find a way to toss the bathwater, sans baby, we're going to have to work with the systems we have in place and stop burning innocents in our hunt for abusers.

My ideas:

Mandatory drug testing sounds like a good way to start. Gets the druggies who don't want to change off of the freebies. They can get back on if they come clean. And sure keep the rehab open to encourage them to stay off the shit. If they go back on they lose welfare again.


And child benefits... will be ONLY for one child only, not per-child... starting in 9 months. This way parents who already have multiple kids, and women who are currently pregnant with another child won't lose any benefits. BUT after that cut off... if you have another child that's THEIR problem, not society's. That will encourage people to start being responsible for what they do with their genitals. And since you can already get damn near free birth control already... there's no excuse if you were having consensual sex.

It's easy to sit in our houses, pounding away on our computers, railing about how there are some have-nots who don't deserve to have what they're getting, but when you find yourself living out of your fucking car and scrounging cans out of dumpsters to get even a single meal a day, a drug test is the price of a week's worth of food.

Can you even collect welfare if you're homeless?


I mean nice example but you're ignoring the point...
I mean if someone's scrounging around in garbage cans for food... where would they be getting money for drugs in the first place? and if they're THAT starving why would they be buying pot when they want food?


Don't confuse the people who milk the system for profit or for personal gain / pleasures with the people who really need help.

There's a difference in wasting welfare money on drugs, neglecting children, and reselling government food for money... with someone who's just trying to eat enough to stay alive.

[Andara Bledin]

Mandatory drug testing sounds like a good way to start.

Sure, it sounds good. But realistically all it does is throw a lot of money into the pockets of people who don't need it and take it away from those who do. Did you not notice the 9-digit figure going to the testing places over this? With about 3% being money that would have gone to "druggies."

We're not saving any money with this initiative. Fuck, we might as well just burn $175,000,000.00 and do nothing else and we'd still have $5,000,000.00 more than if we keep going with the current plan.

In what world does spending more than $180,000,000.00 to save less than $100,000.00 make any sense? You know, besides the one where the guy pushing the initiative is also one of the primary beneficiaries of that $180,000,000.00, that is.

BUT after that cut off... if you have another child that's THEIR problem, not society's. That will encourage people to start being responsible for what they do with their genitals.

As I already mentioned, it doesn't and it won't. Most welfare systems already limit how any children are covered. Fuck, some of these women have every child they have taken away from them because they've been found to be unfit to be parents and they still pop out babies as fast as their bodies can manage because they like being pregnant and the attention that gets them.

Can you even collect welfare if you're homeless?

If you can get yourself a mailing address, yes. But it's hard as fuck, and that's something that needs to be worked on long before the whole "oh, noes, people are spending their money on drugs and too many babies" issue.

I mean nice example but you're ignoring the point...
I mean if someone's scrounging around in garbage cans for food... where would they be getting money for drugs in the first place? and if they're THAT starving why would they be buying pot when they want food?

That is my point. The law doesn't care whether the person coming in is barely eating or if they spend their spare cash on drugs: It requires that they go out, spend their own money to get tested, and then, if they pass, then they'll be reimbursed.

Don't confuse the people who milk the system for profit or for personal gain / pleasures with the people who really need help.

There's a difference in wasting welfare money on drugs, neglecting children, and reselling government food for money... with someone who's just trying to eat enough to stay alive.

I don't believe I or anyone else in this thread has ever said otherwise.

What we have said is that the law doesn't care. It states that if you are so poor that you need to go on welfare to survive, then you'd better figure out some way to scrounge up the money for the mandatory test before you can even be considered for benefits.

That (and the whole conflict of interest thing) is what is being complained about.

^-.-^