# Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784 "2011-07-21T00:47:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/121 "2011-07-22T11:35:42Z")
> [@diggerwam](#): > > But currently I work for a company that deals with subsidized housing. Tenant pays miniscule portion of the rent, but the government (Rural Development or HUD) pays the rest and often times utilities. Welfare might have a time limit, but these folks don’t. The majority of the people in these complexes have been there since the 90’s. Are there any official stats that can back up your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/122 "2011-07-22T11:43:52Z")
> [@diggerwam](#): > > The goal ought to be to let folks find a way out of this government subsidy, this should not be a permanent lifestyle. And that is the goal. Rather than me spewing a bunch of quotes, if you want the basics in order to be better informed on the issue, Wiki is a decent source. General Background: [Welfare - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#United_States) Specific info relevant to this discussion: [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families)**(if you only read one of these links, make it this one. It’s very short.)** [Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Reconciliation_Act) This gives detailed info about the fundamental welfare reform in 1996. It provides good info about what the problems with old-style welfare were, and how it was changed to address those problems. **The majority of people who I see reflexively criticizing welfare often seem to be oblivious about this reform, and seem to be complaining about what welfare was pre-1996.** ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/123 "2011-07-22T12:52:31Z")
> [@diggerwam](#): > > But currently I work for a company that deals with subsidized housing. Tenant pays miniscule portion of the rent, but the government (Rural Development or HUD) pays the rest and often times utilities. Welfare might have a time limit, but these folks don’t. The majority of the people in these complexes have been there since the 90’s. That is definitely a way of life. If they qualify for this assistance, then I assume they are getting additional government help. BZZZZZT! Assuming facts not in evidence! Ten yard penalty. Repeat the down. How about you stop _assuming_, and go find out some actual _facts_ and then make a conclusion based on reality, not just whatever ideas you’re pulling out of your butt? The requirements for subsidized housing programs are pretty easily found with your old friend Google, there’s no reason to have any opinion about public policy based on what you guess to be maybe right about the topic. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/124 "2011-07-22T13:09:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Not really. That just makes C, D and E start a revolutionary cell and blow up B’s car with him in it. I’ll gladly team up with F, G, and H to stop that from happening. And we can actually bankroll our efforts, because we’re competent enough to hold down jobs that pay well, plus – I gotta tell ya, I’m liking our odds more with every detail. [QUOTE=Eonwe] Ensuring that the “undeserving” don’t get what they don’t “deserve” (based on arbitrary moral judgments) is more important than saving money; IOW, it is worth it to spend money to achieve this goal. [/QUOTE] Well, possibly it is, and possibly it isn’t. I figure it’s up to each person with money to decide whether it’s worth it to spend their money on one goal or another, since that’s the whole point of it being “their money” – sure as it’s _ **their** _ arbitrary moral judgments. If I want to give money away to anyone on hard times, and someone else wants to give money away to folks who might be smoking pot but aren’t getting liquored up, and someone else wants to give money away to folks who drink but don’t smoke pot, and someone else only wants to give money to folks on the straight and narrow, and someone else doesn’t want to donate their money at all – again, isn’t that each person’s call to make? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/125 "2011-07-22T13:17:30Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, possibly it is, and possibly it isn’t. I figure it’s up to each person with money to decide whether it’s worth it to spend their money on one goal or another, since that’s the whole point of it being “their money” – sure as it’s _ **their** _ arbitrary moral judgments. If I want to give money away to anyone on hard times, and someone else wants to give money away to folks who might be smoking pot but aren’t getting liquored up, and someone else wants to give money away to folks who drink but don’t smoke pot, and someone else only wants to give money to folks on the straight and narrow, and someone else doesn’t want to donate their money at all – again, isn’t that each person’s call to make? Are we edging into another libertarian thread? If so, let’s not. This is a debate about government assistance and the use of government resources is determined by representative majority rule. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/126 "2011-07-22T13:31:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Are we edging into another libertarian thread? If so, let’s not. This is a debate about government assistance and the use of government resources is determined by representative majority rule. Well, apparently Qin would vote to change things. And, presumably, I would as well. Aren’t such opinions relevant to discussing whether representative majority rule will decide to further change government-assistance policies? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/127 "2011-07-22T13:37:14Z")
> [@diggerwam](#): > > Overall, government should figure out why these folks have been in this situation for so long, and if drugs/alcohol are a contributing factor, then the government should do what it takes to help these people, including taking benefits away to encourage proper behavior. Here’s my question, and it’s very simple. Given how training and conditioning work in every other human context, why is it that when it comes to trying to get people off of drugs and welfare we never talk about rewarding positive behaviors, only punishing bad behaviors? The former is far more effective at producing desired results in many, many contexts. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/128 "2011-07-22T13:42:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’ll gladly team up with F, G, and H to stop that from happening. And we can actually bankroll our efforts, because we’re competent enough to hold down jobs that pay well, plus – I gotta tell ya, I’m liking our odds more with every detail. Being disingenuous is not helping make your point. Let me clarify: Right now, we have some poor people, a vast pile of people who make enough to get by and enjoy life, and a tiny number of vastly rich people. In some countries, especially in the third world, the policies of that tiny number of vastly rich people have been designed to siphon off the resources of the middle group, turning them into the poor group. At some point where the poor group outnumbers the middle and the top groups by any significant margin, no amount of money and imagined competency advantage (since the majority of poor people are not there because they are stupid or lazy, but because of bad luck or structural disadvantages–that margin only gets better as more people become poor) is going to save the people fighting to preserve their money from the people fighting to not starve. Time and again that’s been the case in almost any country that’s had a revolution. Can we end this hijack now, please? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/129 "2011-07-22T13:48:21Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Let me clarify: Right now, we have some poor people, a vast pile of people who make enough to get by and enjoy life, and a tiny number of vastly rich people. > > In some countries, especially in the third world, the policies of that tiny number of vastly rich people have been designed to siphon off the resources of the middle group, turning them into the poor group. > > At some point where the poor group outnumbers the middle and the top groups by any significant margin… Then the solution is simple: keep the poor from outnumbering the “vast pile” in the middle “by any significant margin”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/130 "2011-07-22T13:54:36Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Here’s my question, and it’s very simple. Given how training and conditioning work in every other human context, why is it that when it comes to trying to get people off of drugs and welfare we never talk about rewarding positive behaviors, only punishing bad behaviors? The former is far more effective at producing desired results in many, many contexts. My understanding is that the most effective operant conditioning results when BOTH undesirable behavior is punished and desirable behavior rewarded. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/131 "2011-07-22T14:03:17Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, apparently Qin would vote to change things. And, presumably, I would as well. Aren’t such opinions relevant to discussing whether representative majority rule will decide to further change government-assistance policies? Sure, and we’re free to tell you why we think it’s a bad idea. That’s what happening here. But spending half of the thread arguing the majority should agree to change the policy while spending the other half saying that individuals shouldn’t have to follow the policy if they don’t agree with the majority is trying to have your cake and eat it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/132 "2011-07-22T14:07:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Sure, and we’re free to tell you why we think it’s a bad idea. That’s what happening here. > > But spending half of the thread arguing the majority should agree to change the policy while spending the other half saying that individuals shouldn’t have to follow the policy if they don’t agree with the majority is trying to have your cake and eat it. Well, two-step it. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the majority wants to change the policy to _ **either** _ add a drug test _ **or** _ discontinue it and leave the whole thing up to private charity – such that we’re now arguing over which of those two options to implement. So, uh, have your cake _ **or** _ eat it, right? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/133 "2011-07-22T14:08:48Z")
One problem (among many) of drug testing welfare recipiants is all the assumptions that can falsely be drawn from a positive test. You’re catching occasional users and hard core addicts, with no way to differentiate. (And, by the way, what would you do with the “false positive” problem?) You really want to mess with somone’s benefits if they took a hit off a friend’s joint at last Saturday’s party? I don’t know about other drugs, but most pot users are not daily smokers and have no problem functioning in the real world. Just as must people who drink alcohol are not alcoholics. A drug test tells you very little about a person. Sometimes it tells you nothing. Some bozo suggested a few years back that the members of the bar should be drug tested. I replied that I didn’t think we would want to risk losing so many fine judges and prosecutors. The idea died a quiet death. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/134 "2011-07-22T14:28:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My understanding is that the most effective operant conditioning results when BOTH undesirable behavior is punished and desirable behavior rewarded. _nods_ I agree, but at this point we have people suggesting only using the stick and acting like “getting assistance” is the be-all-end-all of carrots instead of the bare minimum we ought be doing. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/135 "2011-07-22T14:34:30Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > One problem (among many) of drug testing welfare recipiants is all the assumptions that can falsely be drawn from a positive test. You’re catching occasional users and hard core addicts, with no way to differentiate. (And, by the way, what would you do with the “false positive” problem?) You really want to mess with somone’s benefits if they took a hit off a friend’s joint at last Saturday’s party? I don’t know about other drugs, but most pot users are not daily smokers and have no problem functioning in the real world. Just as must people who drink alcohol are not alcoholics. A drug test tells you very little about a person. Sometimes it tells you nothing. > > Some bozo suggested a few years back that the members of the bar should be drug tested. I replied that I didn’t think we would want to risk losing so many fine judges and prosecutors. The idea died a quiet death. There is a further problem with drug testing as currently used. When a marijuana user is subject to drug testing, because THC can stay in the body up to thirty days or even longer and cocaine or meth can only be caught for about 2-3 days, marijuana smokers switch to these other more harmful drugs. The test causes increases in use of the truly dangerous drugs and decreases in marijuana use. If it is a given that users are going to take some drug, then I am sure most of us would prefer they stay on pot rather than the harder stuff. ---
**Author:** ![diggerwam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/919ad9/32.png) [@diggerwam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggerwam)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/136 "2011-07-22T17:08:04Z")
Again, I don’t know any government stats, but I can pull a rent roll from any of our properties to tell me the stats about that property. I did so this morning and found that between 10-15% of tenants at any property have been there since the 90’s. Now, common sense tells me that if these folks are getting help paying for their shelter, they are probably getting help in other aspects of their lives. Now, the goal should be to try to get any able bodied/minded person out of the system. What is being done to accomplish that? Encouraging people to get out of the system includes job training and drug and alcohol counselling. If you find some people who are resistent to the help, then you need to have some ultimate weapon to use. The weapon is taking away benefits. But you also can’t expect the people who need this help to self-identify, you need a way to find the folks who would benefit most from the help. Drug/alcohol test is a form of needs testing. Case workers figure out exactly the kind of help that would benefit the most, and then these folks should be directed to that assistance. The ultimate goal should be to get them out of the system. It should not be a way of life. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/137 "2011-07-22T17:13:14Z")
Should Medicare recipients be drug tested? How about Social Security? ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/138 "2011-07-22T17:30:45Z")
Why not drug testing for recipients of government pay checks, both local and federal? For that matter, why not drug testing for each and every citizen of the USA? Better yet, why not drug testing for everyone who lives in the USA, citizens or not? ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/139 "2011-07-22T17:49:39Z")
> [@diggerwam](#): > > 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. Why should someone with a DISEASE be punished? That is the problem with you right-wingers, you have such a hard-on for punishment and revenge that you don’t realize addicts are SICK. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784/140 "2011-07-22T17:59:42Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > Why should someone with a DISEASE be punished? That is the problem with you right-wingers, you have such a hard-on for punishment and revenge that you don’t realize addicts are SICK. No, susceptibility to drugs may be a genetic condition but using drugs is a conscious choice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/589784.md?page=8)