Wisconsin Govenor moving ahead with plan to drug test food stamp users

a reply to: pavil

I'm against drug testing because there are numerous studies showing it really doesn't work. I live in Wisconsin and I can tell you straight up there is severe food stamp abuse. (of course there is severe corporate & government abuse too) . So I was at this store called Woodmans, there was a lady in front of me, she got a case of redbull, a case of snickers. Every single item in her cart was junk food and/or pre prepared food, even pre prepared peanut butter sandwiches. She paid for it all with food stamps. How do I know, the register actually says food stamps, I kid you not. Don't believe me take a trip there. Anyways, I don't begrudge people that really need a hand up and are having a hard time. I do question abuses like cases of red bull, who knew you could even get that with food stamps. The other problem is that people stay on food stamps for such a long long time. Back in my day it was a shameful thing, now people brag about how they can work the system. Also, I question the type of food people are buying, like this lady, all pure junk food, if she stays on food stamps, my guess is she doesn't pay for healthcare either, so we will all be paying for her diabetes, heart attack etc. You know the drill. I'd like to say this is an isolated incident but it isn't. Every time I go to that store I think I'm the only one actually paying with real money. This is not in a poor area either.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

We are from the govt and we are here to help.

i guess these people think that does drugs = dumb ass

so do they know know that this will be the easiest drug test on the planet to beat?
going to be a big ass waste of money. unless theyre popping randoms on people by showing up at their door this will fail.

jesus chirst they sell 'lab urine' at gas stations.

I really can't comment on this without some amount of bias, so I'm going to sit this one out.

a reply to: seasonal

I'd be all for this if they did the same for all the corporate welfare recipients. Remind me, did we test the CEO's of the auto makers when we bailed their asses out? Did we test the bankers who blew up the world's economy when we bailed their asses out? Nope, we allowed them to hand out bonuses. Screw anyone who wants to blame the down-and-out for the country's woes. When there's a problem, look at the tiers above you, not below you. People without power don't screw things up for people with power, it's just not possible on this scale.

originally posted by: fiverx313
not to mention, every state has done this has found it to be a net loss of revenue... paying more for the tests than they're saving by kicking people off the rolls.

So what is your suggestion?

We shouldn't be giving public funds to drug abusers...all we do is enable their self-destructive behavior? What is your solution to this problem?

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: fiverx313
not to mention, every state has done this has found it to be a net loss of revenue... paying more for the tests than they're saving by kicking people off the rolls.

So what is your suggestion?

We shouldn't be giving public funds to drug abusers...all we do is enable their self-destructive behavior? What is your solution to this problem?

Most of these programs send people who are found to be abusers to drug rehab. It isn't just cold turkey, kick them off welfare except in cases where the applicant won't cooperate.

If you do the math, sometimes it's just way easier and less expensive to give people food and shelter rather than have them jump through all kinds of bureaucratic hoops to "earn" it.

And I will go one step farther than that, and say that giving some people the drug of their choice, as much as they want, and a safe, clean place to use it, is also going to be way less expensive than testing or fighting the "war on drugs."

Some people just can't get it together. So are you going to help them, or are you just going to let them improvise and do crimes to get what they need? It's a lot cheaper than prison. At least until we start outsourcing those to Siberia.

a reply to: seasonal

Hell yeah. Drop anyone on wellfar/unemployment. But we seriously need to test anyone in public office as well.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Well. Some people like myself would like to end drug users wasting our tax dollars. Bad enough all the secret crap the government already does with it. If the users can earn the money for drugs why should I help pay rent and help buy food for them. No one ever gave me anything. I earned all I have legal barely make over minimum wage but house will be paid off soon. If I can make it anyone can

originally posted by: Metallicus
We shouldn't be giving public funds to drug abusers...all we do is enable their self-destructive behavior? What is your solution to this problem?

Give it to them for free. High-quality, as much as they want, even if it means they'll just kill themselves with it. Put them in an old Army camp. Give them three hots and a cot and as much drugs as they want. Monitor them medically. The only real rule would be that you can't hurt anyone else in the camp and you can't leave if you're still using the drugs. But if you can pass a drug test three times in a row, where it shows that you can stay clean even in a place where drugs are high-quality and completely free, you're allowed to leave.

This would save many millions in drug enforcement and prison costs and practically eliminate drug-related crime.

As for "self-destructive behavior," you can't (and have no obligation to) control what somebody does with their own life. If they want to take a lot of drugs and die, you can try to discourage it, but you don't have the authority to stop them. Your goal would be to minimize the damage they do to other people.

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: TinySickTears

Well. Some people like myself would like to end drug users wasting our tax dollars. Bad enough all the secret crap the government already does with it. If the users can earn the money for drugs why should I help pay rent and help buy food for them. No one ever gave me anything. I earned all I have legal barely make over minimum wage but house will be paid off soon. If I can make it anyone can

cause all people that 'use drugs' are jacked to the gills all the time ans spend all their money on it.

some people burn a joint on a friday. costs about $3
positive/negative is bull#

I'm actually for legalization of drugs, but when you are on the public dole, I don't think it is too much to ask to not be a loser by using drugs. When you can put food on your own table, you can do whatever you want imho.


I'm for the legalization of them all too but am really wanting a politician of any ilk that will spend $$$ like it is their own $$$ and they've been labelled a "cheap screw" their entire Life. Once erected this ideal candidate wouldn't be 'on the stump' their entire term looking for the next term. This person would save the $$$ and just say words to the effect "Let Us save the $$$, if I did well this last term let Me work this next one..." This person would also tell ALL the Lobbyist to "get bent"...

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: TinySickTears

Well. Some people like myself would like to end drug users wasting our tax dollars. Bad enough all the secret crap the government already does with it. If the users can earn the money for drugs why should I help pay rent and help buy food for them. No one ever gave me anything. I earned all I have legal barely make over minimum wage but house will be paid off soon. If I can make it anyone can

You haven't really thought about this have you.

It will cost more to implement the drug test than it would to do nothing at all. The amount of money saved is not comparable to how much the testing costs, so why would you be happy to have more of your tax money spent on a failed policy?

originally posted by: JimNasium
I'm actually for legalization of drugs, but when you are on the public dole, I don't think it is too much to ask to not be a loser by using drugs.

Most of the people you know use some kind of recreational drugs. They just keep their loserdom a secret.

And the notion that it's "your tax money," is fallacious. Once the government gets its mitts on it, it's theirs.

a reply to: seasonal

I had to take a drug test just to work for a living. If I could money for nothing but passing a drug test I will pee in a cup right now...

a reply to: Blue Shift


I was replying to ATS™ member 'Edumakated' I screwed up when I cropped it. My part is the lower end where I wanted any politician to spend our $$$ like it was their own $$$. I wouldn't assign a label like that folks w/issues.

I use cannabis medically but would readily admit I was using it way before it was more openly accepted. Heck, the Zig Zag™ man has a tattoo of Me on His arm....

I'd also vote "Heck yea" to legalizing ALL the drugs down the line. This would nip in the bud a bunch of crimes that get committed on the periphery. Instead of having to steal $1000 worth of ?? in order to get $100 from a fence, the User/Abuser could go and buy ?? cheaper. Maybe the Gov't. could $ell a "User Card" that costs $250/yr. and if You get caught using anything w/out the card, then You go straight to Prison for 5 years. If You're caught $elling anything then You go straight to Prison for 15 years. No TRIALs; NO Plea Deals. This of course would allow ALL those currently incarcerated for crimes for simple possession would be freed forthwith...

But not only would I vote "Yea" but am also a proud member of LEAP- Law Enforcement Action Partnership Formerly known as LEAP- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. (law enforcement folks who KNOW The Drug War™ is nothing more than a money grab!)

It is a good idea that has a lot of push back by free loaders.a reply to: seasonal

This isn't just a repub thing. It covers both sides when it comes to federal spending for entitlements, since the government default position is to "NOT PAY".

a reply to: gimcrackery

Even people who use drugs pay into the social services system. If they are going to be omitted for life style choices then they should be able to opt out of paying in.