Welfare Drug Testing

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

Also it leaves a wide open loophole for all sorts of people who will fail to come up with creative ways to work around the system.

Yeah that is what i gathered too. It seems that if they do manage to fail the drug screen they can designate another family member to receive and divy out the payments for them. My original understanding was if you failed you could reapply later, but received nothing in the mean time. This makes it seem that the whole drug screen is a non issue, because even if you fail you still get benefits, just not directly.

Originally posted by Honor93

well ok, if you're gonna offer a snide reply to BH ... let's get specific
1) drivers get their $$ monthly/weekly/daily monies easier than any welfare recipient (most walk or use public transportation that they pay for - more taxes they pay)
2) married folks get a bigger benefit
3) health insurance already drug tests (have been for years) -- you are just not told
4) if you have any other 'rights' that produce LESS of a benefit, please share.

and it does make a difference, every person has the right to eat, every person has the right to work, every person has the right to pay or not pay taxes (true cause illegals & corporations do it every day) ... so, given the rights stated previously, how, when or where is your right to manage monies you FREELY gave away??

I'm done arguing this, because if you read my post above yours, you will realize this whole drug screen is a non issue. Even if you do fail the drug screen you will still receive benefits, you just have to designate a family member to receive them for you and divvy them out. This drug screen policy is a total sham if they are going to allow a failed test to just be side stepped.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Than a precedent has been set perhaps to the detriment of the people. Random, also known as unannounced, drug testing is a requirement for some jobs. However, you also agree to this when you apply as it is part of the application approval process. If you refuse, you are not eligible to be hired for companies requiring this.

Therefore, the contract between employer and employee would be binding.

In order for welfare (my focus would be unemployment personally) recipients to be drug tested, it would have to be added into the application for benefits. By agreeing to this, I would imagine the courts would you responsible to the contract you signed (unless one argues distress, etc).

My point is: should drug testing be a requirement to collecting unemployment? I personally would be in favor of this for any person applying for an extension of benefits.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
I found this interesting for all those saying they are just targeting welfare recipients.

Under the law, which went into effect on Friday, 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. Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional." And the ACLU has filed suit against the state for requiring all state workers to take a drug test and is considering suing the state for drug-testing welfare applicants.

CNN

So, they are at the very least practicing what they preach. Now what do the people have to say that were saying they were just targeting the poor?

got any test results to go with that 'theory' ??
nah, didn't think so ... state employees are coddled not punished.
curious question though ~~ how does 'pending litigation' compare to active punishment?

AND, do notice the ACLU is only acting on the interests of the state employees ... why is that?
no state employee has been fired, demoted, suspended or even suffered a pay cut for a dirty test.
they are given a verbal reprimand, treatment, secured employment (cause now if they're fired it's a discrimination suit cause they have a 'disease/condition/addiction') and benefits so how and why are the needy singled-out, punished and kicked to the curb?

reply to post by SpaDe_

It seems that if they do manage to fail the drug screen they can designate another family member to receive and divy out the payments for them.

That doesnt make sense. An individual can only collect benefits for their self (and minor dependents who would not qualify anyway because of age). But if someone fails, how can they designate another family member to collect for you? Is that based off the assumption that the other family member qualifies, but not currently collecting? Each individual gets a set amount designated specifically for them. If you fail, good luck convincing someone else to volunteer half of their welfare check because you failed your drug test.
The only exception could be a married couple. If they are filing jointly for the family, dad fails, then mom qualifies and begins collecting for the family, fine! No problems. However, if mom fails also, sucks for you. Hopefully at that point DHR would come for the children.

Btw, the time lapse after failing a test was 1 year from the failed test when this law was active in Michigan. Sounds pretty effective to me, but not unreasonable. Maybe 6 months would be better.

reply to post by SpaDe_


Yep, for every silly government proposal like this, people figure out ways to make money off these programs. Can you just imagine the people who will take a cut of the benefit so they can be designated to get the benefits for children?

So will not only an undeserving person be proffiting, the kids still won't eat anyway, especially after the drug user has a portion taken right off the top!

I know people who recieve food stamps (now debit cards) who take them to a merchant who will use the card themselves and then give the food stamp recipient cash value at say 50% if they are lucky. (disgusting)

Like I say, it's just a way for people to get more creative, and also at an increased cost for these programs to tax payers.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
I'm done arguing this, because if you read my post above yours, you will realize this whole drug screen is a non issue. Even if you do fail the drug screen you will still receive benefits, you just have to designate a family member to receive them for you and divvy them out. This drug screen policy is a total sham if they are going to allow a failed test to just be side stepped.

Can you not see that this is your government saying, "Settle down people. We're going to test the Welfare recipients to be sure your money isn't wasted on drugs..." ?? This is what ALWAYS happens when the government gets involved. Now there's going to be a crapload of money spent on drug testing, only to have NO different outcome.

This is ALWAYS what happens when government tries to dictate morality.

The government WANTS people on Welfare. They WANT people out of work. They want people to join the military instead of working. And those who don't, they want them to depend on the government to take care of them. That's how they can exert control. And we have people like you (and many in this thread) who are supporting them to do so.

Congratulations. The people have pressured the government to enter into the private lives of citizens and spend a bunch more money that we don't have - for what? - NOTHING.

reply to post by Honor93


You seriously expect me to debate this? Your point is that since in Florida more employers do drugs than employees (let's forget for a moment you provided no proof of such a claim), that this negates whether or not welfare recipients should receive drug testing?

Your argument is entirely unfounded and utterly ridiculous.

Your points:
Most Employers in Florida do drugs.
Less than that number of employees do drugs.
You quit your job because you wouldn't sell illegal drugs.
Your summation:
So, no welfare recipients should have to be drug tested.

Care to explain how this is at all relevant to the topic at hand?

reply to post by Honor93

state employees are coddled not punished.

Hardly!!! Read the last paragraph of my original post...

reply to post by SpaDe_

cool ... now you are beginning to understand the fuller picture.

Even if you do fail the drug screen you will still receive benefits, you just have to designate a family member to receive them for you and divvy them out.

ok, this is where my chafing begins because not all recipients have a family member to do such (self included)
you don't get to designate a minor, you cannot designate a friend and what if the spouse is history .. what are many single, elders who may present a false positive result to do ?? who is there to protect them? many cannot work, many already did their part to contribute ... why should they be punished in any form, accidental or not?

This drug screen policy is a total sham if they are going to allow a failed test to just be side stepped.

agreed, it is a sham, a shame and a permanent stain on our record aside from being UNConstitutional.

reply to post by Honor93

last i checked, you can't access my bodily fluids on demand ... soooooo, everything beyond that is a request, is it not? and thus, if i refuse your request, i should be punished ??? you sure about that ?

According to your logic, you seem to be quite attached to your 'intimate fluids'. Nothing is being taken from you! Consider the perspective: You are required to prove that you are drug free in order to qualify, and this is how you do it...

If they cannot be accessed on demand, we can wait...

Originally posted by TomServo
You are required to prove that you are drug free in order to qualify, and this is how you do it...

To "qualify" for welfare, there must be a certain low level of income. THAT is the qualification.

It is a gross violation to arbitrarily add qualifications that don't have anything to do with the purpose of welfare.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by TomServo
You are required to prove that you are drug free in order to qualify, and this is how you do it...

To "qualify" for welfare, there must be a certain low level of income. THAT is the qualification.

It is a gross violation to arbitrarily add qualifications that don't have anything to do with the purpose of welfare.

edit on 9/8/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

The purpose of welfare is to supply food, housing, clothing to those currently unable to do so themselves. The purpose of welfare is not to purchase illegal drugs. Food stamps are not eligible on certain foods already. The government is already dictating what it can and can not be spent on. This measure merely would prove compliance, no?

reply to post by mus8472


that has nothing to do with the subject, please re-answer.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by Honor93

 

You seriously expect me to debate this? Your point is that since in Florida more employers do drugs than employees (let's forget for a moment you provided no proof of such a claim), that this negates whether or not welfare recipients should receive drug testing?

Your argument is entirely unfounded and utterly ridiculous.

Your points:
Most Employers in Florida do drugs.
Less than that number of employees do drugs.
You quit your job because you wouldn't sell illegal drugs.
Your summation:
So, no welfare recipients should have to be drug tested.

Care to explain how this is at all relevant to the topic at hand?

edit on 8-9-2011 by lpowell0627 because: (no reason given)

if you choose to debate your delusion, sure.
what proof would be good for you ??
The receipt for purchase of the items mentioned ?? can do
affidavits from buyers on the rope - could be done
a bust record ? -- well, i can give ya bust size but no record
(heck this biz is barely a yr old)
as for 'proof', you'd have to be more specific ... for this conversation, perhaps taking my word for it could be sufficient as 20+yrs employment, in a wide variety of fields, in this state does qualify me to make and state such an observation.

If that isn't enough for you, pick another issue, there are plenty from which to choose.
and why wouldn't it negate testing for recipients ??
if the employers were spending their profits on the biz, the unemployed could likely get back to work ... so, which of the two groups is seriously demeaning the country as a whole?
which of the two groups has greater resources and access?
which of the two groups frequently goes UNpunished?
you really don't see any conflict here ????

ok, let's get back to the gal i mentioned from first hand experience (receipt as proof) ...
she fraudulently qualifies to collect
employs 2 under the table
fudges her sales records regularly
pays no employment tax, unemployment tax or benefits
reduced sales tax (altered records and all)
is a single-parent of 2 less than age 12, biz owner, drug dealer on company and city/community property and somehow you think the needy, possibly drug using homeless person is a greater threat to your pocketbook ... really ???

and this is only a recent example ... i can give you many more just not so recent.
so, let's make this summary more correct ...

Most Employers in Florida do drugs. ~~ actually i said many not most
Less than that number of employees do drugs. ~~ never said such, referenced the unemployed welfare recipients ... you want to add to the mix, that's another discussion.
You quit your job because you wouldn't sell illegal drugs. ~~ twice in the past 5 yrs
Your summation:
So, no welfare recipients should have to be drug tested. ~~ correct, it is UNConstitutional, period.

for the record, i the only drug testing i support is when it follows a work-place injury, however, this topic is more specific.
It is my belief that the company does have the right to mitigate their liability, hence the test after an injury ... otherwise, it's just plain UNConstitutional. (and honestly, i occasionally waiver on the previous statement regarding WP injuries but i know of no other way to obtain such information)

Originally posted by lpowell0627
The purpose of welfare is to supply food, housing, clothing to those currently unable to do so themselves.

No. The purpose of welfare is to provide financial assistance to those who need it. What those people decide to spend it on is at their discretion. We aren't talking about food stamps. Those are for FOOD (hence the name).

reply to post by Honor93

ok, let's get back to the gal i mentioned from first hand experience (receipt as proof) ... she fraudulently qualifies to collect employs 2 under the table fudges her sales records regularly pays no employment tax, unemployment tax or benefits reduced sales tax (altered records and all) is a single-parent of 2 less than age 12, biz owner, drug dealer on company and city/community property and somehow you think the needy, possibly drug using homeless person is a greater threat to your pocketbook ... really ???

Invalid comparison. These are different circumstances with different violations, and should be handled as such. That doesn't justify that either behavior is acceptable. That woman should be audited and held accountable, regardless.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

No. The purpose of welfare is to provide financial assistance to those who need it. What those people decide to spend it on is at their discretion.

Wrong! On the same token, those funding the assistance should have a say in how its spent. Obviously, common ground would have to be agreed upon. But, that's why we have the Judicial system... to represent the public's well being. When my friend tells me that he has no problem giving money to a beggar. That is a cop out in my opinion because it is the most convenient solution. 'What he does with it is between him and God' he says. Next time a beggar asks you for money, offer to bring them anything they want to eat, so just wait here for 30 min. I've done this several times. About half the time, the response is 'Dont worry about it'. Occasionally, they are gone by the time i get back with their meal. Therefore, combining that logic with yours, next time a beggar asks you for a hand out, say "Yea, I'll spend $20 for anything you want, food, beer, ride, crack, hooker. You name it, and i'll bring it back in 30 min". Are you ok with that?

reply to post by TomServo

you mean this one ???

All this is trumped by the words 'upon probably cause'. Probable cause can easily be determined by recipients' records. If Joe has been arrested for possession, i see no problem with requiring drug tests in order to qualify for welfare. Jim, who has never been linked to drug abuse, shouldn't have anything to worry about. He will be reimbursed for the test fee if he passes. For the most part, only those who are threatened by this law would go through the trouble of filing suits. So, in essence, by supporting the movement to deem this form of drug testing unconstitutional effectively translates to supporting the use of welfare payouts for illegal drugs.

To put it in perspective, I work for the govt by proxy. I'm occasionally required to pass drug tests. If I fail, not only do I lose my job, benefits, 401k, etc, I could also face Federal charges. Now tell me how that is different. If anything, those who get their work done, don't cause mischief, and are productive members of society should have more lenience than those who are corruptly sucking the Federal teet.

Note: Kudos to the contributors of this thread. Many of you have responded with coherent, intelligible arguments. I am religious, and i recently authored a thread in the religion forum. The results were absolute poppy cock. Thank you all!

just so i'm not accused of changing the 'context' ... please, indicate your point cause every state employee i know who has failed a random test is still employed today. (well, 2 were laid off at a later date)

probable cause does not apply retroactively. fail on that point
there is a first time for everything so even Jim shouldn't be given 'special' consideration.
and what if it's been 5yrs since Joe was recorded as indulging?
so, previous mistakes dictate tomorrow ?? again, this concept fails

so in essence, every tax dollar paid contributes to enabling drug users in all forms and walks of society.
in all reality, those who support this law conceivably have much $$ to gain and will never agree that it's an abuse of every citizens protected right to be secure in their person.

If you mean this sentence ...

I'm occasionally required to pass drug tests. If I fail, not only do I lose my job, benefits, 401k, etc, I could also face Federal charges.

employee handbook stating such please or public record of any such event occurring. (threats don't make for a solid argument - and your 401k is BS cause that transfers - and as for losing benefits w/o losing your job, i don't buy it for a moment)
Normally, a positive test is occasionally encouraged as it will entail lengthy treatment on those fancy benefits you think you just 'lost' ~~ hello re-distribution.

what is different ?? you get a substantial paycheck with opportunity for advancement.
you get health benefits for you and your entire family ~~ you accepted the contract, you succumb to the stipulations ... you are free to leave and find another position.

And on that note, let's just say ... you attend a friend's retirement party, get a little toasted and take a 'sleep aid' that you were not prescribed. with me so far? next day, you are randomly tested and subsequently discharged w/o benefits or severance ... you and your family need to eat, right ?? well, based on your 'probable cause theory', you are now a recorded drug user (notice i didn't say abuser) and forbidden from obtaining what may be a life line considering other possible circumstances ... now, is that a pair of shoes you'd be willing to walk in until the next opportunity comes along?

Originally posted by TomServo
reply to post by Honor93

 

last i checked, you can't access my bodily fluids on demand ... soooooo, everything beyond that is a request, is it not? and thus, if i refuse your request, i should be punished ??? you sure about that ?

According to your logic, you seem to be quite attached to your 'intimate fluids'. Nothing is being taken from you! Consider the perspective: You are required to prove that you are drug free in order to qualify, and this is how you do it...

If they cannot be accessed on demand, we can wait...

edit on 8-9-2011 by TomServo because: (no reason given)

is a reminder necessary ?? ~~ i AM INNOCENT until proven guilty ... what is there to prove? i am innocent by default.
and yes, i am rather attached to my bodily fluids isn't everyone? also my hair, my appendages, my blood, my serratonin levels, my mineral content, my botanical balance, if you will ... after all, it was given to Me.

Again, i need to prove nothing ... i am INNOCENT, period ... you have probable cause such as an on the job injury, i'd be likely to concede ... otherwise, it's my slime and i'll do with it what I choose, not you or anyone else. and, if i want to stand like a boy and go for a distance record, that is my right also. you wanna play catch?