Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Do you support or oppose laws that require those who sign up for welfare to take drug tests?

Personally I support such laws as welfare should be for those disabled or otherwise cannot take care of themselves or for those who genuinely look for work and can't find them not addicts who funnel money to the drug cartels or drunks. As a sidenote I think it would be a good idea to forcibly institutionalzie those type of people-one of President Reagan's few mistakes was his law releasing most of them into the streets.

[XT]

Do you support or oppose laws that require those who sign up for welfare to take drug tests?

No...I am completely opposed.

-XT

[Ambivalid]

This idea couldn't have come from the "small-goverment" party, could it?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Do you support or oppose laws that require those who sign up for welfare to take drug tests?

Personally I support such laws as welfare should be for those disabled or otherwise cannot take care of themselves or for those who genuinely look for work and can't find them not addicts who funnel money to the drug cartels or drunks. As a sidenote I think it would be a good idea to forcibly institutionalzie those type of people-one of President Reagan's few mistakes was his law releasing most of them into the streets.

Your get tough solution is counterproductive and expensive.

In your opinion you think we, as a nation, should be incarcerating more non violent people?

Also, a parent who does drugs still needs to feed her children. If we pay people to feed their children, occasional drug use doesn't change the social problem we're paying for in the first place.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Your get tough solution is counterproductive and expensive.

In your opinion you think we, as a nation, should be incarcerating more non violent people?

Also, a parent who does drugs still needs to feed her children. If we pay people to feed their children, occasional drug use doesn't change the social problem we're paying for in the first place.

I'm not saying we should jail addicts-I am opposed to that. But we shouldn't give taxpayer money at them either. And those children if their parents happen to be addicts are unfit and thus should be taken away by social services.

[XT]

It will cost you more in the long run to try and do this (and it's stupid in any case), and, as Lobohan pointed out, addicts still have kids who still need food, clothing and shelter. You are trying to 'solve' a non-problem, and the solution will end up costing more than the problem did...and will have fairly unsavory results.

If you think drugs are a problem then treat the problem directly instead of trying this dippy back door crap.

-XT

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by xtisme

It will cost you more in the long run to try and do this (and it's stupid in any case), and, as Lobohan pointed out, addicts still have kids who still need food, clothing and shelter. You are trying to 'solve' a non-problem, and the solution will end up costing more than the problem did...and will have fairly unsavory results.

If you think drugs are a problem then treat the problem directly instead of trying this dippy back door crap.

-XT

I would say even if the costs ultimately are higher, the principle behind this counts also.

In addition I do support treating the problem directly by legalizing marijuana and cracking down on other drugs by stricter strengths on drug dealers and making membership in criminal groups a felony.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

I would say even if the costs ultimately are higher, the principle behind this counts also.

Ironically, most of your opponents to this idea are going to say the same thing...and, IMHO with better justification. Personally, I don't give a fig about the principle of the thing...it will cost more, won't work, be essentially a bureaucratic nightmare, and will make things worse.

Out of curiosity, what problem are you trying to solve here?

In addition I do support treating the problem directly by legalizing marijuana and cracking down on other drugs by stricter strengths on drug dealers and making membership in criminal groups a felony.

Not exactly what I meant by treating the problem, though legalization of all elicit drugs would certainly be a start. When you make something illegal you restrict treatment options and criminalize the behavior of a large percentage of the population...like setting a speed limit of 25 mph on a freeway. You can have your police focus on enforcing such a ridiculous law, but then you will be unable to watch for more serious crimes going on somewhere else, or you could use spot checks and random monitoring, but then you are going to have a lot of folks breaking that speed limit and just catching random people...or you could not make a law that you can't effectively enforce and that it's clear a large percentage of the population is going to ignore anyway.

-XT

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

A while back, there was a study on outcomes of the policy that banned addicts from getting subsidized housing if they were still using. They ended up on the streets, and they didn't get clean.

One community decided they would not make absolute abstinence a requirement for housing. They later found that a significantly higher percentage of these folks were getting straight after moving off the street than were the folks who were living on the street. (I'll track down the study ASAP since this is GD).

Alcohol and drugs cause great human misery. The war against drugs as waged causes even more human misery. Treatment that's non-punitive is more effective and cheaper than jails, prisons, more police, more courts, more laws.

[BobLibDem]

Sorry, two year old child, you can't eat today because your mommy smoked some weed.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Ironically, most of your opponents to this idea are going to say the same thing...and, IMHO with better justification. Personally, I don't give a fig about the principle of the thing...it will cost more, won't work, be essentially a bureaucratic nightmare, and will make things worse.

Out of curiosity, what problem are you trying to solve here?

To show that welfare will only be given to the deserving.

Not exactly what I meant by treating the problem, though legalization of all elicit drugs would certainly be a start. When you make something illegal you restrict treatment options and criminalize the behavior of a large percentage of the population...like setting a speed limit of 25 mph on a freeway. You can have your police focus on enforcing such a ridiculous law, but then you will be unable to watch for more serious crimes going on somewhere else, or you could use spot checks and random monitoring, but then you are going to have a lot of folks breaking that speed limit and just catching random people...or you could not make a law that you can't effectively enforce and that it's clear a large percentage of the population is going to ignore anyway.

-XT

[/quote]

So legalize cocaine, heroin and other "hard drugs" too? And I only support jailing dealers by making it a crime to sell or distribute the drug not to consume it.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Do you support or oppose laws that require those who sign up for welfare to take drug tests?

Absolutely support them.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Sorry, two year old child, you can't eat today because your mommy smoked some weed.

While I am opposed to such laws the recently passed one in Florida allows for the money to be collected by another adult on behalf of the children rather than giving the money to the parent on drugs.

Dunno how well that will work out but that is the plan.

Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

SOURCE: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Do you support or oppose laws that require those who sign up for welfare to take drug tests?

Personally I support such laws as welfare should be for those disabled or otherwise cannot take care of themselves or for those who genuinely look for work and can't find them not addicts who funnel money to the drug cartels or drunks. As a sidenote I think it would be a good idea to forcibly institutionalzie those type of people-one of President Reagan's few mistakes was his law releasing most of them into the streets.

You throw drunks in there at the end. What is a drunk? Any definition I can think of would be a user of legal drugs. So unless you are simply irrational I'm sure you'd agree that anybody who drinks any alchohol cannot receive welfare.

Also, you are under the misimpression that drug addicts funnel money to drug cartels. Sometimes several levels later the money ends up in the hands of drug cartels. Using your logic, gun manufacturers should be put out of business for funneling guns to drug cartels.

Also, you haven't decribed anything like the people that Reagan forced out on the street as part of his almost unbroken record of mistakes. Those people were mentally ill. Apparently you would leave the mentally ill living under bridges while people who take drugs will be placed into full care facilities to save money on welfare.

So after analyzing your bizarre OP, I'd like to ask you a question. Are you taking drugs, or drinking, or mentally ill?

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Do you support or oppose laws that require those who sign up for welfare to take drug tests?

Personally I support such laws as welfare should be for those disabled or otherwise cannot take care of themselves or for those who genuinely look for work and can't find them not addicts who funnel money to the drug cartels or drunks. As a sidenote I think it would be a good idea to forcibly institutionalzie those type of people-one of President Reagan's few mistakes was his law releasing most of them into the streets.

Classic welfare, as you are thinking of, has been gone since the Clinton Administration. Now it's mainly aid for single moms with young kids, the disabled, etc. There is no more "Welfare" as the Pubbies rail on about. It is as dead as the Dodo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Do you support or oppose laws that require those who sign up for welfare to take drug tests?

Extend this thinking:

Why not make any time the government provides money to some entity require a drug test?

We can institute nation-wide mandatory drug testing overnight.

[Merneith]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

To show that welfare will only be given to the deserving.

HAMLET
(to POLONIUS) Good my lord, will you see the players well bestowed? Do you hear, let them be well used, for they are the abstract and brief chronicles of the time. After your death you were better have a bad epitaph than their ill report while you live.

POLONIUS
My lord, I will use them according to their desert.

HAMLET
God’s bodykins, man, much better. Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping? Use them after your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty. Take them in.


Welfare is for the needy. It is not a reward for moral turpitude. We give it out because they're desperate and also, because we can afford it* and because it's against our "honor and dignity" as a nation to allow our children to starve in the streets. Well, it used to be anyway. It used to be that people with money felt a responsibility to society at large and humanity in general to provide for the needy and improve our society's honor in general. Now we've become so cheap and miserly that you're proposing we spend $1000 dollars so that we can weasel out giving a hungry family $100.

Who are you to sit in judgement and decide who "deserves" to be able to feed their children or put a roof over their head? In what twisted religion is "judging the needy" more moral and worthwhile than "feeding the needy"?

Not only do I not support this pissant, mean, and useless proposal, I vote that any money appropriated for its implementation should be immediately put into the bank for Head Start and low cost birth control.

* Yes, we can. Especially if everyone chips in.

[Indygrrl]

Absolutely against this for all the reasons listed, and because we have such a fundamental misunderstanding of addiction. It isn't a moral failing any more than diabetes, and until people get that through their heads we won't get anywhere with drug treatment in this country.

[diggerwam]

People taking the government money, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc should be tested for drugs.

Why? People who take drugs are far less likely to be able to get off those programs and actually get a straight job. Those programs are not meant to be a lifestyle, they are meant to be a temporary help. If Mom wants her kids to eat and to stay out of social services, don't do the crime.

I honestly don't care if it's more expensive, the government does a lot of things "for your own good". I wouldn't prosecute them or anything, and I'd probably try counselling/treatment before I'd cut off funds, but hell yes, drug test 'em.

[Telemark]

I'm all in favor of drug and alcohol tests for anyone receiving government assistance.

This includes all forms of corporate welfare, mortgage income tax deduction, tax breaks and subsidies, and farm credits.

[Wesley Clark]

The elderly are the biggest welfare queens in this country. They eat up tons of money via medicaid, medicare and SS.

[Indygrrl]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

I'm not saying we should jail addicts-I am opposed to that. But we shouldn't give taxpayer money at them either. And those children if their parents happen to be addicts are unfit and thus should be taken away by social services.

You think children are better off in the terrible foster care system than with their parents who love them, but happen to have a drug problem? Clearly you aren't familiar with the concept of functional addicts, which is a category most addicts fall into. You can be addicted to drugs and still be a good parent. Hell, even if they were only borderline acceptable parents they'll still take better care of their kids than "the system" would.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

You throw drunks in there at the end. What is a drunk? Any definition I can think of would be a user of legal drugs. So unless you are simply irrational I'm sure you'd agree that anybody who drinks any alchohol cannot receive welfare.

I meant alcoholics, not anyone who ever drinks.

Also, you are under the misimpression that drug addicts funnel money to drug cartels. Sometimes several levels later the money ends up in the hands of drug cartels. Using your logic, gun manufacturers should be put out of business for funneling guns to drug cartels.

Also, you haven't decribed anything like the people that Reagan forced out on the street as part of his almost unbroken record of mistakes. Those people were mentally ill. Apparently you would leave the mentally ill living under bridges while people who take drugs will be placed into full care facilities to save money on welfare.

No both of those groups should be institutionalzied or at least treated.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Classic welfare, as you are thinking of, has been gone since the Clinton Administration. Now it's mainly aid for single moms with young kids, the disabled, etc. There is no more "Welfare" as the Pubbies rail on about. It is as dead as the Dodo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996

There is still state welfare.

Originally Posted by Merneith

Welfare is for the needy. It is not a reward for moral turpitude. We give it out because they're desperate and also, because we can afford it* and because it's against our "honor and dignity" as a nation to allow our children to starve in the streets. Well, it used to be anyway. It used to be that people with money felt a responsibility to society at large and humanity in general to provide for the needy and improve our society's honor in general. Now we've become so cheap and miserly that you're proposing we spend $1000 dollars so that we can weasel out giving a hungry family $100.

Who are you to sit in judgement and decide who "deserves" to be able to feed their children or put a roof over their head? In what twisted religion is "judging the needy" more moral and worthwhile than "feeding the needy"?

Not only do I not support this pissant, mean, and useless proposal, I vote that any money appropriated for its implementation should be immediately put into the bank for Head Start and low cost birth control.

* Yes, we can. Especially if everyone chips in.

Simply throwing money at addicts will hurt them more. If we truly cared for them we would treat them physically, mentally, and spiritually.

Originally Posted by Indygrrl

Absolutely against this for all the reasons listed, and because we have such a fundamental misunderstanding of addiction. It isn't a moral failing any more than diabetes, and until people get that through their heads we won't get anywhere with drug treatment in this country.

That's why addicts should be treated not given money, that won't help them at all.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Do you support or oppose laws that require those who sign up for welfare to take drug tests?

Personally I support such laws as welfare should be for those disabled or otherwise cannot take care of themselves or for those who genuinely look for work and can't find them not addicts who funnel money to the drug cartels or drunks. As a sidenote I think it would be a good idea to forcibly institutionalzie those type of people-one of President Reagan's few mistakes was his law releasing most of them into the streets.

Drug tests, alcohol tests, check for steroids, make sure they are not overweight, check their high school transcripts, check out all their family members for bad genes, yep do them all . These people obviously have given up all their rights and dignity. Sic them when they are down.

[Little Nemo]

I'm opposed. I don't see any valid government purpose being served by such a policy.

If people have a valid need for welfare, they still have it regardless of whether or not they're on drugs. If you feel people who are receiving welfare don't have a valid need, it's a separate issue that doesn't involve drugs.

What are you going to do about a single mother who's a drug user? Are you going to let her child go hungry because she's afraid to face a drug test?

Are you going to test people who receive Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid? Unemployment and disability insurance? Farm subsidies and disaster relief? You going to make everyone submit a urine specimen before you give them a check? Or are you only going to test the people who receive the bad kind of government assistance?

As far as an issue of curtailing drug use, I say let law enforcement enforce laws. There's no legal justification of doing a major sweep of an entire category of people just because we can.

Drug tests cost money - a decent drug test costs about fifty dollars. And that's not counting all of the extra people you're going to have to hire to administer these tests. And the police, court, and prison resources you're going to need for the drug users you catch.

A lot of welfare is handled by the states. What are you going to do about those states that don't want the added expense of drug testing (or the expense of dealing with newfound drug users)? Are you going to have the federal government step in and start telling the states how to run their welfare systems?

[Indygrrl]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

That's why addicts should be treated not given money, that won't help them at all.

It's clear that you don't get it. Drug treatment, as it stands right now, is a joke. The 12-step model is not enough for most people, and the few alternatives to it aren't much better.

Before you go terrorizing addicts with the threat of taking their children and throwing them into institutions you better do some research into what all of that would actually entail. The cost of enforcing all of these ideas would be astronomical, and it would do more harm than good.

[voltaire]

In Florida, where such a law was recently passed, it does cost more to do the testing than it saves by not paying welfare to those who test positive for drugs. So basically, the money that would have gone to some needy drug-users will go to some providers of drug tests.*

"Studies show that people on welfare are using drugs much higher than other people in the population," he said. (Gov. Scott)

After that interview, PolitiFact Florida asked the governor's office exactly which studies he was referring to.

The Scott crew handed over one, 11-year-old national survey that found 9.6 percent of people in families that receive some sort of government assistance -- which includes non-cash assistance programs like food stamps and Medicaid -- compared to 6.8 percent of people who receive no government assistance at all.

The ACLU supplied PolitiFact with a very similar study -- it's old, national, and includes other types of cash assistance -- but it found a very different result. Drug use for welfare recipients was between 1.3 and 3.6 percent, compared to 1.5 percent of those non-welfare recipients.

We're guessing the governor's other study he was referring to must have come from the "Rick Scott University of Learning Good" -- because like that university, the other study doesn't exist.

Let's say we give the governor the benefit of the doubt -- 9.6 percent of the 93,170 people on welfare in Florida use drugs, and they won't be receiving their cash assistance. The average monthly check for a welfare recipient is between $100 and $200, but we'll use the latter to maximize the state's savings. Based on 8,944 people failing their drug test, that saves the state $1,788,800.

Then the state has to reimburse the cost of the test to the 84,266 welfare recipients who they believe will pass. Since the drug tests are believed to cost up to $25, that's $2,106,650 they would be paying to the welfare recipients.

That's $317,850 the state believes -- based on their presented research -- they will lose in the first round of drug testing.

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pu...ug_testing.php

But the major problem I have with the new law is that if someone fails just one drug test, they lose benefits for one year, or six months if they complete (and somehow pay for out of their own pocket) a drug-treatment program. But drug tests aren't infallible. One false positive or one lab screwup can cause someone who is completely clean and innocent to lose much needed assistance, meager as that assistance may be.

* Surprise, surprise, the FL governor Rick Scott was found to own $63million in shares in a prominent company that provided walk-in drug testing. Once that little fact got out and caused an uproar, he tried transferring the shares to his wife. When that ploy proved insufficient to quell the uproar, he finally gave in and sold the shares.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

That's why addicts should be treated not given money, that won't help them at all.

You can't force treatment on someone. It doesn't work, sadly.

[buckgully]

Is being poor against the law? Is having a financial disaster in your life probable cause?

Being the beneficiary of government programs should not require citizens to give up basic constitutional rights.

[DWMarch]

Did we not just do this in another thread? Ah, here it is:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=616218

As I mentioned in this thread, effective addiction treatment is very, very expensive. Much more expensive than welfare. And since welfare workers aren't trained as addiction counselors, you'd be turning the welfare system's mandate into "find excuses to not help people". This is not the magic bullet that will make an addict into a rational person who will clean up and get a job.

Now if there was a pill like antabuse that could cause an aversion to drugs and if it wasn't a horrible invasion of privacy to force someone to take it, I could see that being a part of a more stringent system. But this would be somewhat akin to making pregnant welfare moms have mandatory abortions (no one in the US objects to aborting the hopeless children of the poor, do they?) and I can see ACLU-sponsored lawsuits from a mile away.

Anyhow, I think those who feel welfare is such a great ride for addicts should buy a vial of crack rock and hop on the train. Take the welfare challenge! If it's such a great and rewarding life, why would you slave away in a cubicle or cleaning toilets when you could live like Ol' Dirty Bastard, driving your limo and twenty children to the welfare office to pick up your food stamps? (Oh wait, ODB is dead... but he lived large while he was alive, all because of the endless benevolence of a welfare system that is built around supporting bad habits!)

[HumanBear]

Part of the job of Government, in my opinion most of the job, is to make a nice society where people are happy and life is good. Of course they can't do this by spending more money than they have, at least not in the long term so it needs to be sustainable in all ways.

One the reasons I am happy to pay taxes and give money to undesirables (not all welfare recipients are undesirables, but some are) is that I don't want them mugging me on the street, breaking into my car or home etc. Some people are just not a good fit for our society, and we completely ignore those people at our peril.

On top of that I think the way the Government treats its citizens reflects back on to society, it's one of the reason I am against the death penalty it makes a harsher society when the state kills people it doesn't like.

Principles are complicated, and while the principle of not giving money to people who don't deserve it sounds reasonable, it has many, many ramifications throughout society which most societies have decided are not beneficial. You have to be very careful with your principles when they are to be applied to the real world.

[inbabylove]

I get so angry at people who have the misconception that welfare is for drunks and druggies. I had a baby in October, the birth was partially paid by state medicaid, and only what my private insurance did not cover (maybe 1500 of 15k) . While still on medical leave waiting for surgery related to said thing my baby's father had a life moment and was out of work for 2 months. I applied for food stamps. the whole process was smelly and uncomfortable enough without dropping my drawers in such a filthy place, and believe me they don't just give you foodstamps. you have to produce paperwork showing what you make and spend every month, and the verify with the work number. It took 30ish hours to get it all in! Thanks to the folks who pointed out the impracticality and expense of such a program.

[HumanBear]

Originally Posted by inbabylove

I get so angry at people who have the misconception that welfare is for drunks and druggies. I had a baby in October, the birth was partially paid by state medicaid, and only what my private insurance did not cover (maybe 1500 of 15k) . While still on medical leave waiting for surgery related to said thing my baby's father had a life moment and was out of work for 2 months. I applied for food stamps. the whole process was smelly and uncomfortable enough without dropping my drawers in such a filthy place, and believe me they don't just give you foodstamps. you have to produce paperwork showing what you make and spend every month, and the verify with the work number. It took 30ish hours to get it all in! Thanks to the folks who pointed out the impracticality and expense of such a program.

It's great that your country has made such a thing available, help to people when they need it. But you must understand the right-wing argument that you shouldn't have a baby if you can't afford it, and if you haven't go enough savings to cover a family illness at the same time. It's hard to argue with that viewpoint, apart from you can't expect that of everyone for all kinds of reason and there will always be people who need help, so what should we do.

[PandaBear77]

Totally against it. The cost alone would grossly outweigh any money saved by kicking drug users off the rolls.

This is just a hunch, I have no cite ... but I wouldn't be surprised if, percentage wise, Congress has a higher rate of illegal drug users than welfare recipients.

Not that Congress would EVER drop their drawers to submit to such a blatant invasion of their privacy. It's ok for the unwashed, but they're above that sort of thing, see ... never mind that they're paid 6 figure salaries whether they show up to work or not.

[HumanBear]

Originally Posted by PandaBear77

Totally against it. The cost alone would grossly outweigh any money saved by kicking drug users off the rolls.

This is just a hunch, I have no cite ... but I wouldn't be surprised if, percentage wise, Congress has a higher rate of illegal drug users than welfare recipients.

Not that Congress would EVER drop their drawers to submit to such a blatant invasion of their privacy. It's ok for the unwashed, but they're above that sort of thing, see ... never mind that they're paid 6 figure salaries whether they show up to work or not.

You could be right, but people may argue that congress isn't using tax money to pay for their drugs. I think many would say that drugs aren't a problem if the users can pay for them for the rest of their lives. Not necessarily true of course, drugs have all kinds of negative effects, but there is a difference between an addict with no money and an addict with lots of money.

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

... I think it would be a good idea to forcibly institutionalzie those type of people ...

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

I'm not saying we should jail addicts ...

And the difference between being forcibly institutionalized and being jailed is what exactly?

CMC fnord!

[diggerwam]

People who are opposed...you really want the government (your tax dollars) to pick up the living expenses for people who use drugs? You don't see how some people might have some issue with that.

Let's say, unemployed person uses drugs, therefore effectively keeping him away from a straight job (due to drug testing at the prospective employer). You are OK with paying this guy's unemployment checks for 99 weeks, even though he has no shot at improving his situation?

Let's put it this way. Threatening benefit dollars may give people incentive to stop using, if they stop using, by definition their lives are improved, even if they are not able to find a legit job. The people who oppose seem to say it's not worth the cost trying to help these people become more productive members of society.

You are just giving up on a certain sub-sub-sub-section of society and forcing legit taxpayers to pay for it.

Let me say again, taking away benefits should not be the result of the first failed drug test, counselling should be the first choice. But after a person demonstrates they can't get off the drugs, you have to have some further punishment, not just a slap on the wrist.

[HumanBear]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

People who are opposed...you really want the government (your tax dollars) to pick up the living expenses for people who use drugs? You don't see how some people might have some issue with that.

Let's say, unemployed person uses drugs, therefore effectively keeping him away from a straight job (due to drug testing at the prospective employer). You are OK with paying this guy's unemployment checks for 99 weeks, even though he has no shot at improving his situation?

Let's put it this way. Threatening benefit dollars may give people incentive to stop using, if they stop using, by definition their lives are improved, even if they are not able to find a legit job. The people who oppose seem to say it's not worth the cost trying to help these people become more productive members of society.

You are just giving up on a certain sub-sub-sub-section of society and forcing legit taxpayers to pay for it.

Let me say again, taking away benefits should not be the result of the first failed drug test, counselling should be the first choice. But after a person demonstrates they can't get off the drugs, you have to have some further punishment, not just a slap on the wrist.

No, I don't like giving money to druggies, but I do accept that every society will have useless people in it and that something has to be done with those useless people.

There isn't a way to make them better people, all we can do is educate on the pitfalls of drugs, try to keep drugs off the streets, and offer help to those who want to get off drugs.

If we just lock up druggies in prison or force them to take medical care will we solve the problem and will it cost less. I suspect giving them money to keep them quiet is the cheapest way to handle this situation, other than killing them of course but I don't think we'd like to go down that route.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

You are just giving up on a certain sub-sub-sub-section of society and forcing legit taxpayers to pay for it.

Let me say again, taking away benefits should not be the result of the first failed drug test, counselling should be the first choice. But after a person demonstrates they can't get off the drugs, you have to have some further punishment, not just a slap on the wrist.

So same question I asked already. Would you support drug testing as a condition for receiving Social Security?

[shiftless]

What is so special about welfare recipients? Tales of welfare queens are nothing more than an attempts to misdirect people away from the real waste in government spending.

If there is a problem with people using government money on drugs then the rule should cover everybody. Who is to say the farmer who receives subsidies doesn't waste it on drugs, or the student asking for a loan or the CEO looking for a billion dollar bailout. What percentage of that bailout money went to hookers and blow I wonder? Or is only those on welfare who waste money?

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

I would say even if the costs ultimately are higher, the principle behind this counts also.

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

To show that welfare will only be given to the deserving.

This, my friends, is the core of the modern Republican perspective.

Basically, it's not fair that I should have to help people who are lazier/stupider/weaker/more sinful/poorer than me. I will fight tooth and nail for the knowledge that none of those less-deserving people get any of my hard-earned and obviously-deserved money. Even if it costs me more money. Because then I can sleep soundly knowing that the weaker people out there are getting what they deserve. And that's what's most important.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Are you asking if people on welfare should never be allowed to have a drink? Because it certainly sounds like you do, and it does seem to be the consequence of your proposal.

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that people on welfare should never be allowed to enjoy themselves, because... well, why is that exactly? Are miserable people so much more worthy of welfare than people who might enjoy themselves once in a while when they're already in a shitty situation?

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

This, my friends, is the core of the modern Republican perspective.

Basically, it's not fair that I should have to help people who are lazier/stupider/weaker/more sinful/poorer than me. I will fight tooth and nail for the knowledge that none of those less-deserving people get any of my hard-earned and obviously-deserved money. Even if it costs me more money. Because then I can sleep soundly knowing that the weaker people out there are getting what they deserve. And that's what's most important.

This, my friends, is the core of the modern Democratic perspective: we will fight tooth and nail to take away your money and give it to folks who use drugs and don't work -- because then we can sleep soundly, knowing that people who obey the law and work for a living are no longer getting what they deserve.

That's a winning slogan if ever I heard one!

[Llama Llogophile]

Originally Posted by HumanBear

It's great that your country has made such a thing available, help to people when they need it. But you must understand the right-wing argument that you shouldn't have a baby if you can't afford it, and if you haven't go enough savings to cover a family illness at the same time. It's hard to argue with that viewpoint, apart from you can't expect that of everyone for all kinds of reason and there will always be people who need help, so what should we do.

Bolding mine. I must understand? Hmm, well I might if the right wing wasn't trying their best to de-fund entities like Planned Parenthood that help provide affordable contraception.

Drug testing as described by the OP isn't a way of being fiscally responsible. It's a way of further humiliating people when they're already down for puritanical reasons.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

You can't force treatment on someone. It doesn't work, sadly.

Well if they don't want treatment and they are still taking drugs then maybe they shouldn't be receiving government money,

One the reasons I am happy to pay taxes and give money to undesirables (not all welfare recipients are undesirables, but some are) is that I don't want them mugging me on the street, breaking into my car or home etc. Some people are just not a good fit for our society, and we completely ignore those people at our peril.

On top of that I think the way the Government treats its citizens reflects back on to society, it's one of the reason I am against the death penalty it makes a harsher society when the state kills people it doesn't like.

The death penalty doesn't have the state killpeople it doesn't like only murderers, traitors, spies, and deserters.

Originally Posted by inbabylove

I get so angry at people who have the misconception that welfare is for drunks and druggies. I had a baby in October, the birth was partially paid by state medicaid, and only what my private insurance did not cover (maybe 1500 of 15k) . While still on medical leave waiting for surgery related to said thing my baby's father had a life moment and was out of work for 2 months. I applied for food stamps. the whole process was smelly and uncomfortable enough without dropping my drawers in such a filthy place, and believe me they don't just give you foodstamps. you have to produce paperwork showing what you make and spend every month, and the verify with the work number. It took 30ish hours to get it all in! Thanks to the folks who pointed out the impracticality and expense of such a program.

In such case I support the use of foodstamps/medicaid/ and whatever other welfare programs that are available.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

In such case I support the use of foodstamps/medicaid/ and whatever other welfare programs that are available.

Except when they smoke the occasional joint or have a beer, or am I misrepresenting your position?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Superfluous Parentheses

Except when they smoke the occasional joint or have a beer, or am I misrepresenting your position?

No if they're alcoholics or drug addicts not occasional users.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

No if they're alcoholics or drug addicts not occasional users.

Regardless of the fact that many people can be fairly productive members of society when addicted, how does your mandatory screening proposal distinguish between the occasional users and addicts?

[elbows]

First I think we should test Lawyers and Judges, and Politicians and lawmakers, including screening for alcohol and prescription drugs. I would prioritize that above welfare recipients. Let me know how that goes.

This ridiculous proposition reveals how Fundamental Christianity resembles Fundamental Islam in it's barbarism. Who is really surprised they are only one step apart, after all?

Curtis you never seem to tire of trying to legislate morality, (yours of course). One would almost think you'd never read history.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page of a separate point: if the OP wants, in private life, to donate money only to those who abstain from pot and booze -- or who indulge in one but not the other -- we're all okay with that, right? As a free citizen with his own hard-earned cash to distribute as he sees fit, he can give only to people he believes are worth it?