Mandatory drug testing for those receiving public assistance.

Cutting someone off of assistance because they do drugs accomplishes basically nothing. As one poster has already shown, a program doing just that, actually cost more money in the long run to sustain.

The person will end up dying, or harming others, or doing something desperate once cut off. I mean, it's an entirely selfish thing to do to just "cut them off", it does absolutely nothing.

Then people will say, "Well send them to jail instead!!" Right, because sending them to jail for taking government money while doing drugs makes sense. We'll just pay tens of thousands of dollars for each prisoner every year, but damn it all, we're gonna make sure they can't do anything else!

I would much rather support a program that would get them off drugs, somehow.. I mean, it's a pipe dream and the least likely place for it to succeed is in America. It will just turn into a hellish and costly nightmare like everything else.

But damn it all, let's just make sure they suffer without money, cause damn it I hate my life and I Work! So they should suffer WAY MORE!!

reply to post by concernedcitizan


Are you sure your view is based not on the potential held in those lives if they could get out of a rut through assistance or is just one based upon your own false sense of worthiness over and above another? Who are you to say you understand they don't serve a purpose, possibly one of the most important being for you to show them kindness and compassion, to not be aghast that they might receive things that any truely spiritual person considers an illusion anyway? Perhaps you fail the test if you find they should be exterminated rather than treated with some dignity. Can you see the big picture clearly enough?

Maybe, just maybe it would be the right thing to tell a bum he's just a stupid bum. The only thing is, how would you do it in a way that makes the difference for that person? I'm sure they've heard it before a million times. Maybe in some cases a million-and-one is the threshold and then maybe not.

This assumed that leeching is equivalent to assistance, which I assure you it's not. Perhaps you'll be soon able to subject yourself to the experiment in one way or another.

Gotta love the rampant stereotyping, bigotry, and racism on ats. Deny ignorance indeed.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


It seems both pretentious and judgmental to assign humans "worth," whether equal or inequal. A more knowledgeable outlook is to say that each person has a position in which they function at an optimum level, and that when outside of this position, they become incompetent either grossly (externally) or directionally (morally, larger-perspective decisions). On a political level, all people who are not possessed of pathological anti-social behavior like criminality or parasitism are of equal worth, but what determines "worth" in a human sense is what the individual accomplishes in overcoming the challenges life has set before him or her. "Worth" is what we mean to ourselves, and the sense of achievement we have in confronting our fears and making sanity of our lives.

reply to post by SyphonX

But damn it all, let's just make sure they suffer without money, cause damn it I hate my life and I Work! So they should suffer WAY MORE!!

Suffer w/o MY money.They can go make their own money and do as many drugs as they want.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Thanks for your off topic reply!Can always count on you for one of those.Other than judging the people in the thread,wanna present an opinion?

reply to post by concernedcitizan


If you assign them no inherent worth you assign them equal worth. Your words are thinly-veiled advocacy of a caste system, assigning innate fitness to a particular station. You are misled if you think one should find shame in accepting or asking for another's help. People fail from this sort of pride. Also, receiving assistance and providing assistance go hand in hand.

My state does it sensibly. There are the three basic types of assistance, medical, food, and cash. You have to do drug testing if you receive cash, but not the others.

Someone asked: what happens if someone comes back positive? Well then you have to enroll in drug and alcohol treatment. You still receive benefits as long as you receive treatment.

First off you have to consider cost. ARe they considering this for all aspects of public assistance? When states are struggling and enrollment is quadruple right now, do you really want to shell out all the money for drug testing, paperwork, and such for all programs? Or just certain programs.

Despite what the rampant stereotyping and bigotry displayed here, not all people are on assistance for long periods of time. Many just use it as a stop gap. Only for a month or two. Does the government really want to shell out money to someone who is only on it a few months?

reply to post by genius/idoit


How is it off topic when people are making wide assumptions on a population of the community? Nice try. But no. Making blanket statements such as MY money, loafers, slackers, and crackheads is a racist, bigoted comment. And defending it is quite sad. I can already see your going to cling to your misguided ideas as long as you can.



[edit on 11-2-2010 by nixie_nox]

reply to post by nixie_nox


How in the world is that racist?You are the one assigning race to those quality's.

So when I say loafer,slacker or crackhead you think what race?Black?And I'm the one your calling a racist?OK!

[edit on 11-2-2010 by genius/idoit]

y have I not heard of surprise breathalyzer screenings to detect impairing levels of alcohol, done in a similar way? Would you want a breathalyzer in your car that prevents it from starting and phones the police if you blow too high?

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with this at all. I'm sure that statement will get some flames, but its true. Perhaps its because my family has been forever changed by someone driving drunk. Maybe its because I'm a secret fascist and haven't recognized that fact yet....if so, I think I might actually be okay with that.

I'm waffling on this issue.....started out one way but some of the arguments I've read here have really made me think.....

The thing is, I understand the fear that drug testing could lead to more government in our lives. I get it that people want privacy. I'm completely okay with the logic that some folks take illegal substances for medicinal reasons. And I'm all for the sentiment that what I do on my own time is my own business, and not my employer's.

But on the other hand, I see the endless cycle that is the welfare system. I see people I know who abuse this system without shame or scruples. I work with their children every day. I know the pain addicts go through; I know the turmoil their families face.

How do we balance it? How do we keep the welfare system for those who truly need it, but weed out those who abuse it?

And where does personal responsibility come in to play? Or does it?

Anyway, thanks for your input. Now I guess I gotta go think......

reply to post by genius/idoit


So exactly how much money do you actually pay?

Do you or your industry receive government subsidies?

Do you actually engage in productive work that results in a tangible, worthwhile product or are you a financial parasite from Wall Street?

Conning suckers may be "hard work" but it sure isn't productive or useful work, but most in the finance industry are always going on about how "hard" they work. In reality they would collapse after an hour of genuine work.

I note that the "idiot" part of your name seems to be the patronymic. Appropriate, it would seem..

Originally posted by genius/idoit
I'll go you one better.Not only should these parasites be drug tested,if your on welfare then you should be on mandatory birth control.

Oh, so their receipt of assistance on your(our) dime(s) makes them your chattel?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
First off you have to consider cost. ARe they considering this for all aspects of public assistance? When states are struggling and enrollment is quadruple right now, do you really want to shell out all the money for drug testing, paperwork, and such for all programs? Or just certain programs.

Possibly it is introduced as way to increase the costs to provide a contrived justification for cutting programs at such a time as more and more folks that thought they were "too good" for them suddenly find they need them to help out.

reply to post by apacheman


I am an electrician and I don't appreciate your insults.So yeah I pay for you sponges and I don't think you should be able to buy drugs with the money I work for.I would like to see you drug tested before you get a penny of my money,and if your poor underprivileged kids need it I say I give it to them directly and cut out the defective middle man

reply to post by EnlightenUp


They don't have to sponge off me if they don't want to.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by genius/idoit]

Would the guy driving in this video, qualify for public assistance??? Just curious....






www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

They don't have to sponge off me if they don't want to.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by genius/idoit]

Maybe they can sponge a modest amount for a short period and return that manifold. Or, alternatively, they can sponge in detention. Ok, maybe they should be executed too which should preclude that possibility. Well, you'll still have to shell out a bit for that as well.

reply to post by freetree64


That's what they look like after they pick up their welfare check and they're on their way to the drug dealer

reply to post by EnlightenUp


A job would be out of the question I guess.