Welfare Drug Testing

Are we going to start going door to door also on a saturday night to breathalize people to make sure they didnt spend any of this money on booze either? If youre going to try to invade a persons life to see what they spend money on for pleasure, you should really look into more aspects of it than just drugs.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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).

and on this note, even the FS benefit is often traded off but who is really to blame in this instance ??
the 'addicted one" or the shopkeeper/clerk, drug dealer who buys in?
which is worse, the welfare $$ provided or the business ppl who take advantage of those who are clearly mentally challenged?

as for the Cash benefit, it isn't even tracked like the FS are, ... which reminds me ... who spends $50 in groceries at a convenience store? this alone should serve as a red flag for many but it's just casually 'over-looked'.

the shopkeeper/owner still has to show that trade $100 (for $50 in cash) ... one way or another, so what does this mean?
that he/she is also cookin the books, which is also a felony, but we are expected to bypass this transgression and demean the weakest even further. What a SHAM

Originally posted by TomServo
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.

please enlighten us as to how this is 'different' ?
i didn't follow her spending of her stipulation, can't say what she used it on, for or with but i do know she obtained it ILLEGALLY.
As many recipients do ... whether by lying, simple deceit, organized reporting (illegals), or basic fabrication ... you pick, they are all the same to me.

So, as the OP indicated, druggies are supported a variety of ways, not just through welfare.
singling the recipients out is wrong ~~ especially when the program is so easily abused.
tax dollars provide much more than welfare but ALL of Congress is paid by your tax dollars too, shouldn't we suspend their 'benefits' first ?? or at least test them for drug use ??

it is all related, i don't care which end you attack.
the system is seriously flawed, not the recipients.
the taxpayers who negate contributing to charity because they are trained to think they are being 'robbed' via welfare is utterly ridiculous yet occurring in a city near you.

agree that she should be held accountable but guess what ?? the LEOs aren't even interested in the info, according to them, they have to catch her in the act (i say BS but whatever).

i am not justifying either behavior but you cannot punish the end of the rope and ignore the beginning ... tug of war always has 2 sides. And, so long as there are willing participants, and we have to pay the FBI to make illegal deals that kill our own children, some serious revamping need be done but not by one group but by all.

walk any cow field and you'll find that peepee steps eventually lead you to some serious poopoo
i strongly suggest we all improve our stone soup recipes, we are gonna need them

Originally posted by doctornamtab
Two questions though: I live in a medical marijuana state...what about this "drug"?

Anyone that considers cannabis a drug needs to have their head examined.

What about Prozac, Ambien and all sorts of abusable prescription drugs? If you test positive for Zanax would they take away your welfare?

Pretty sure that most of those won't light up a test, BUT, the solution is to simply provide your prescription, and this would apply to the medical marijuana thing as well, I'm sure.

Also, if we're going to drug test because its wasting money why dont we audit and micromanage people's checking accounts, credit card payments, water bill etc? I mean if we're really worried about money going down the drain why not actually manage the money, not the person and their personal choices.

Actually, if you're on the gubment dole, that might be a fairly good idea. Actually the drug testing would be a good idea as well, if a positive test lead to treatment and not to abandonment.

But, like I said, you give up rights by taking money from the govt. I give up rights by taking money from the company I work for. Its the same thing.

This is a topic for a different thread, but a society that allows employers to violate constitutional rights by jeopardizing your ability to earn a living isn't actually free. Take the Tracy Morgan incident, for example. His freedom of speech, even when being exercised in his OWN FREE TIME, was revoked by his NBC employers threatening his paycheck. So Morgan doesn't really have freedom of speech. His constitutional rights have been curtailed by a technicality and that is appalling. Corporate States of America, War for Oil, You're free to do as we tell you, yada yada yada.

But without legitimate treatment programs that are AFFORDABLE(!!!!!!!!!) for poor drug addicts this will just cause more crime. Drug testing welfare people can only work if we give them treatment too. You cant just cut them loose and expect crime rates to stay the same. We all gotta eat, even poor welfare drug addicts.

AGREED, well, except cannabis is an entirely different ball of wax. To paraphrase Bob Sagat, nobody has ever prostituted their mouth to smoke weed. The same cannot be said for most other drugs.

You can't really treat a cannabis user being that there's nothing to treat except the fact that they don't agree with a federal law. You can't treat an opinion, well you can try, but I'm sure the result would be Orwellian.

Hey, my spell check didn't flag "Orwellian."

Originally posted by mus8472
I fully and completely support drug testing for those receiving government assistance. I also think that reimbursement for test cost upon successfully testing negative is a fair way to do it. If I have to take a drug test in order to have a job so I can make money and then have it ripped away from me to be given to those on government assistance then by god they should have go take a dam test too.

Me too.

That includes those who claim an earned income credit/claim more than themselves as a dependent on their taxes, those who receive taxpayer dollars for contract work, and anyone else who gets any support from the guvment: farmers, politicians, business owners, meter maids, school employees...you name it.

Let's include those who indirectly benefit from taxes as well--like people who use parks and roads, libraries, go to school, and purchasers of GE products.

Of course, I'm being sarcastic.

US' brand of capitalism is a pyramid scheme, I don't believe that the bottom end (the crutch of the rich) should come under fire for any reason.

This thread blows. You shouldn't have to give up anything like that to this government. Just because somebody partakes in Hooty, doesn't mean they should be denied certain "benefits". Especially when so many people love Hooty. Thats not the reason they are out of a job.

Here's a thought, why not go to a reimbursement type of system, here's how it would work:

When a person applies for assistance, they would need to bring in receipts for as many necessities as they could produce for the past three months (I believe this is how it works now anyway). Then their case worker would decide what kind of reimbursement that they qualify to receive and in order to receive further benefits, they would have to produce legitimate receipts each month in order to continue receiving reimbursement.

From the beginning, they should be told that the benefits will expire after a certain time period.

As far as drug testing goes, I believe it is as about as unconstitutional being tested for a job. In both scenarios the applicant is seeking financial income that they are not constitutionally entitled to thus making the arrangement a civil agreement, so all bets are off at that point.

Finally, someone on ATS had once brought up the idea of making community service mandatory for welfare recipients, something like 10-20 hrs per week. I think this a great idea, though some would argue that some receiving welfare would not be physically able to do community service. To those who argue that case, remember that welfare and disability are two separate things. Is it unreasonable to ask those who are supported by the community to help maintain it?

Great post, S&F

I say we give lie detector tests along with drug tests to the politicians each time they come up with a new way to spend our tax dollars as well as drug tests to all citizens of nations that receive foreign aid. IT's only right that if they are going to drug test welfare recepients then let's test all of the recepients of the government welfare called foreign aid. I mean seriously people, where do you think the biggest waste of tax dollars occurs, by welfare recepients or by wasteful government spending?

I am not supporting drug addiction or abuse but if you added up all money spent on welfare versus all other avenues of government spending of tax dollars, the spending on welfare would be a drop in the bucket compaired to all others. Instead of worrying about whether or not people on welfare are on drugs we should be worrying about all the pet projects and kick backs that politicians receive that are an absolute 100% waste of tax dollars.

reply to post by TheThirdAdam

Finally, someone on ATS had once brought up the idea of making community service mandatory for welfare recipients, something like 10-20 hrs per week.

This WAS a great idea and was producing more transition opportunities to get off the welfare dole ... thing is, it was stopped the moment ole'Blamo took office.

i was at the grocery that day (with benefits available) but had to return the items because the 'system had been turned off' while the transition took place. After noon that day, no one could access their benefits and immediately things began a changing ... one of the first to go ... community service requirements and btw, then it was 40 hrs per month. Not a lot, not a little and still time to 'look' for a real job. Lots of duties most anyone who has mobility of any kind can perform.

personally, i liked the idea ... it opened doors of opportunity otherwise bypassed ... it got you out of the doldrums, out of the house, off your butt and involved, if only for a few hours each day and the simple fact that it boosted self-esteem. It was a comforting feeling to believe you were 'earning' your keep to some degree.

edit to add: i also think this community service should be relative to the amount you collect ... example, my FS allotment was around $150 for the month ... at 40hrs work that same month, the $$ value i was being paid didn't even equal 1/2 the minimum wage of the day. so, not only is it good labor but cheap, legal labor ... i'd really like to see the illegals match that. (if they must stay)

Even Jesus said"The poor you will always have with you"I guess he knew not everyone is an overnight success.
Making drug tests mandatpry for welfare is just another brick in the Nazification of America.
How far from that is the death camps?
The fact is that the poor are stuck in slums and concentrated into area where there is heavy drug activity.
They have the right to be treated the same as everyone else ie innocent till p[roven guilty.
No person under the constitution is obliged to incriminate themselves.
By doing this we are making the transition to the idea that goverment may take an iinterest in every aspect of [peoples live.
More intrusive stuff will follow....
Things like fusion centers where several police forces will spend tax dollars spying demestically on us.
Cant anyone see the creeping Nazism that is taking over american govt????

Originally posted by mus8472
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

It's not about freedom at all! It has to do with ensuring that our tax dollars are being used as they should. If someone needs money to buy food or keep the lights on then by all means give it go them. If they want money to buy crack then cut em off.

But it's okay if your tax dollars are being used to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere?

reply to post by TomServo


Rights should not be based on behavior, they should not be conditional. Should your rights of freedom of speech be subject to politically correct sound bites? Should you have freedom of speech only when it agrees with the current administration? Having to piss in a cup to show your innocence without any probable cause is indeed unreasonable. Unless you feel being poor is probable cause.

To force some one to piss into a cup and pass a test in order to get food stamps is a agenda being pushed by these so called smaller less intrusive government Republicans types. This governor and the company he owns is now making money off the poor, he has also expanded government control over the citizens.

We want less government right?? yet you support this??

reply to post by stirling


You're right, no person is obliged to incriminate themselves, just like no person is obliged to take government assistance. When you start asking uncle Sam to pay for your lifestyle, you give him the authority to tell you how to live. Your parents had the authority to tell you not to do drugs as a teenager because they supported you, the same rules apply. But don't worry, it will never become standard practice.

I think its a good concept but in reality it is counter productive to welfares polical nature. It needs to be made as easy as possible to be taken advantage of in order to be effective as a bargaining chip for candidates who seek the votes of the lower class.

reply to post by LDragonFire


Are you implying that welfare is a civil right? Wow, just wow...

As far as testing every applicant, that's ridiculous. Each case has a case worker, just up their judgement. Most people know when they are being scammed, it doesn't take a genius to know when you're talking to someone who is strung out.

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


No We Are guaranteed to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure according to the constitution.

If you want to regulate people's lifestyle choices then why stop at drugs? What about fizzy drinks, fast food, candy, lack of exercise, cigarettes, alcohol, watching too much TV, video games, internet addiction, gambling?

Why some drugs, which is basically only pot since everything else can easily be rid from the system in a matter of hours or days.

So really what this is, is about a governor who profits on tax payer dollars to deny government assistance to pot smokers, whilst pleasing immensely that segment of the population that is so powerless that the only way they can gain a sense of self-worth is to think they are sticking it to some scum making lifestyle choices that they don't agree with.

Hypocritical mumbo-jumbo is all that is. Humans have always used medicines, drugs, sought to alter their consciousness. In the last 110 years or so western civilization has been hypnotized by powerful interests to see certain drugs as "immoral" or "wrong", whilst they have built their textile and pharmaceutical industries. Now we have generations of people brought up unto this idea that drugs are the source of all the problems, surely it is nothing else in society that is the problem. It's the drugs! So it's okay to take people's blood and piss and judge them when you can get away with it. Fourth amendment? Not for those scum druggies, no sir! The guy in the street addicted to heroin is the dirtiest, rottenest person on earth. The doctor who has to take 10 vicodins to keep from withdrawing during surgery, why that's just fine! If you're wealthy they call it things like adderall and vicodin, but if you're poor it's meth and heroin. Those who are well to do get their drugs in orange bottles while the scumbags of the world buy them in plastic bags and get thrown to jail, denied benefits, whatever else while the oppressed blue collar workers stomp around feeling self-righteous about the sweat of their brow. Well you should feel self righteous because the national is built on your back, but go after the people that are stealing all your money. Hint: It's not the poor. Trillions are being spent to murder people across the world but all you see is $77 billion to try to keep people fed.

How someone ended up in the situation they are in is not your right to judge. Quit behaving like your whole paycheck is just going to some imaginary welfare queen living some grand life, high on "drugs". That's a ridiculous, destructive and hateful fallacy that you need to snap out of. Realize you are getting played by the big boys, not the people just struggling to survive.

You people who trash the 4th amendment and think your way of life is better than someone else's have a lot to learn.

Originally posted by mus8472
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

lpowell you have made my point more succinctly than I ever could. This I completely agree with and is really the root of my argument. My job brings me into close contact with people on government assistance, oftentimes in their homes. When I pass the brand new car in the driveway and walk in their living room to see the kids playing the newest xbox game on the 50" flat screen while mom is cooking steak in the kitchen it makes me sick. Especially when I go home in my car with the out of date registration that's 10k miles overdue for an oil change and eat ramen for dinner.

I work for public assistance, have customers in my lobby now. DON'T MAKE ME EXPOSE the blatant lies you spew in this post. You're nothing more than regenerating that Ronald Reagan "welfare queen" lie that so many have clung too. It isn't true for so many reasons.

Stop lying about people and painting false pictures.

reply to post by TomServo


It's absolutely correct. If someone fails the test, they will STILL receive the benefits. They just have to ask their sibling or cousin or friend to receive it for them and then give it to them.

See how useless this bill is?

Drug testing in general is a joke because the tests mainly target users of marijuana, which should be legalized, regulated, and taxed in this country.

I've been on both sides of this debate. I currently work for public assistance, and in the past I supplied people with "medicine".

Folks....people on welfare do not buy drugs! That is a terrible lie. People who buy drugs have jobs or are dealers themselves. Welfare recepients who get drugs get them for free from their boy/girl friends. And these are people who use weed.

Crackheads do not even apply for welfare! In my 7 years working here, I haven't met ONE crackhead in my office or building! They simply don't have the tenacity to participate in the program, because as of 1996 ANYONE receiving cash assistance HAS to volunteer from 82-130 community service hours. Crackheads aren't willing to do this. Also, they rarely have custody of their children, a requirement for receiving the assistance.

Stop all the lying....