Passing random urine tests to be eligible for welfare
 

I got an email that stated the following:

I don't think anyone should be drug tested ever. How about that?

I think its pretty shitty to assume that if a few people abuse the welfare system then all of them do same as I think its f'd up to drug test someone before you hire them. Whatever happened to treating adults as adults and innocent until proven guilty?

I can't express enough how tired I am of seeing that email. It's been circulated for years now and every six months or so some new genius at my job forwards it to everyone and posts it everywhere.

I'm against drug testing those on welfare simply because drug tests are expensive and they don't prove anything significant. And while our gov't has come up with some creative ways to waste tax money - I'd rather not give them another excuse.

But what pisses me off the most about this entire issue is every time I go into the gas station a few blocks from my job that's located next to a homeless shelter and I catch the cashiers (illegally) cashing out people on their gov't checks as if they bought groceries and such only to sell them beer, sodas and other junk foods.

I'd report the gas station but I doubt how significant an impact it'd make on our welfare system which is such a dire need of reform.

its in need of reform because people dont report abuses of the system.

The obviously solution is not giving away others peoples money to buy votes via welfare.

Then they can do all the drugs they want.

Wrong. You can tighten the reins to your liking but that'll only accomplish getting them off welfare and into jail.

These people need to be re-educated.

Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the drugs rather than take away the money?

Fight poverty, don't exacerbate it.

wrong. if you tighten the reigns, then the gas station people go to jail. they are the ones skirting the law. the people with the checks are just taking advantage of the lack of accountability.

(Wrong.) The stores are supposed to be investigated and with the thousands of stores in Queens alone that participate in the gov't aid programs - that probably won't even happen. And even if it does and the store is caught in the act, at most they'll be fined and if they are shut down then those in need of support will just illegally cash their checks elsewhere.

Cracking down on the stores and revoking their eligibility to the program won't positively effect them at all. It won't teach them that their children need stable parents and wholesome foods much more than they need to party and do drugs.

This system works as long as we look only to treat symptoms and not to treat their root causes. As I said before, these people need to be re-educated.

The gas station has to cash those checks, so if they're doing it illegally, their bank is just as much to blame. More than likely, it is not illegal to accept a government check in lieu of cash; it would be thus if they were handing over foodstamps, though for the beer and junk food.

Random drug testing for those on welfare wouldn't accomplish much. Wasn't welfare reform about it being a means to get by but with a promise to find work? That went over well....

good points.
however, is doing nothing at all the answer?
it has to start somewhere.
maybe there are so many places illegally cashing checks because nobody ever reports it.

That's just it-maybe what we think is illegal, isn't. A gas station convenience store is still a grocery store and there are no restrictions on what a government check can buy at grocery stores. Well, what it can buy legally.

It all boils down to what welfare is intended to do. If it is intended to replace a salary for those who do not work, the money is theirs to use as they please. If it is intended to buy food and housing, then welfare money should not be spent on anything else. If the system is intended to lift the fallen out of the gutters of society, then subsidized rehabilitation should be part of the program for those with substance abuse problems.

I also dont like the implications that people on welfare are druggies.

Wouldnt that mean that all employers who drug test their employees are implying that their employees are druggies? A large number of employers do random, mandatory tests. I would assume, and I would hope, that the tests be non-discriminatory- you need welfare, you take a drug test.

How about drug testing corporate CEOs that receive corporate welfare?

I'm too fucking lazy to check right now, but I'd be curious to know the dollar amount spent on corporate welfare compared to the dollar amount spent on those in poverty. You never hear the Angry-White-Man™ bitching about corporate welfare in email forwards.

Hows that war on poverty going and when can we pull out? How many 100's of billions must we spend on this pointless war?

Corporations provide jobs and fuel the economy.

What does the welfare class provide again?

Business for you when their teeth fall out, and with any luck they've got medicaid.

Your lack of compassion is alarming, unless I'm mistaken. If you want to end this "war," what do you propose instead? Do you want to poor to get even poorer, or would you rather reintroduce debtors' prisons, perhaps?

Corporations need workers, and they can get them from the welfare class. Welfare isn't permanent for everyone, you know. There are many who use the system for around two years or so. So, in answer to your question, the welfare class provides a pool of workers if corporations would be willing enough to make enough jobs available.

I hope you aren't assuming that no one on welfare wants to work, and bear in mind that up to a quarter of welfare recipients are so because of disabilities. It can be hard to find work when you're physically limited.

Spare me the compassion bull. This white guilt has created a permanent welfare class unable to function on their own (see Katrina) with alarming crime rates, because by throwing money at the problem we have destroyed the black family (for example, this just out yesterday 4 out of 5 black children in Indiana are currently being born out of wedlock, this was much lower until the welfare state was established), and replaced the father with the state. Only problem is the government is a crappy dad.

This problem is growing not shrinking.

So yes I'm sure there is a segment on welfare that is trying to find work and some with claimed disabilities really can't work, so lets separate them from the vast herd of dependents.

I'm not saying cut these people off right away, but fund no further children, focus on training and education, and get their future generations off the government tit.

Of course that would require they don't all vote for democrats and that 'compassion' is really just buying votes at the cost of these peoples future.

Race is far more of an issue for democrats, and far more devastatingly exploited than all the harm things like the KKK ever did. Murder, crime, fear, ignorance, hopelessness, the product of 'compassion'.

Ustwo, let's not leave out the 16 million impoverished White people in America.

And compassion isn't a Democratic conspiracy; it's a real thing, so don't be afraid of it. I'm not saying you should throw money at any problem, but I do expect effective community and social programs in place to help alleviate the problems of poverty. And if welfare is one of these tools, then so be it. Make it work. There are many other factors affecting the increasingly difficult plight of the impoverished. You can't attribute the whole thing to the introduction of the welfare state.

And while I understand that poverty greatly affects the Black and Hispanic communities, I don't understand your KKK comparison.

Fighting poverty is like fighting ugly. The more plastic surgery you do the more ugly you find.

Poverty is not a hard number which states "if you make $X, you are not poor." I know that's what people like to think, with the poverty line and others, but it's simply not the case.

Being poor is a relative. If the average income for a family is $40k, then there will be a lot of people below that line. Fighting it the way we are, we're only moving the average up we're not actually improving those below the average.

You can increase the minimum wage, ok fine. Now cost of labor for everything goes up, along with it the higher level jobs now pay relatively less and so have to get pay raises along with it. All of a sudden those making minimum wage make no more relatively than before the change, but it DID make our cost of living higher than a foreign country. BAM our companies move overseas where it's cheaper relatively, and more mid/lower level jobs disappear.

I think everybody receiving welfare should be drug tested occasionally. If I'm helping to pay for their existence then I want to be sure that they're not spending my money on drugs and other stupid shit. Ideally (if we had the manpower) I'd have welfare recipients itemize and document every expense paid for with their welfare money. Welfare is great for those that truly deserve it but many, many people abuse it.

A former coworker of mine lived off welfare as she had a slew of children, all by different fathers. She worked about 20 hours a week making $7/hour, yet she still had a Louis Vuitton diaper bag. She was also know to enjoy a fair amount of pot. I sure was glad to see my hard-earned money going towards her children. Riiiiiiight.

I, like ustwo, have little sympathy for the many people on welfare who are abusing the system, not even trying to get out.

Should students who receive federal tuition assistance be drug tested?

Should small business owners who receive financial support from the SBA be drug tested?

Should pastors of faith-based organizations who receive federal grants for local social service programs be drug tested?

Yup. I'd submit to a drug test right now to keep my student loans.

Don't you want to know that your hard-earned tax dollars are going toward what they are supposed to, not drugs or alcohol (or Louis Vuitton handbags)??

I dont want discriminatory policies.....either test ALL recipients of federal aid and assistance or none.

If the problem is growing and not shrinking, why do you attribute it to the welfare program rather than other policies implemented over the last seven years which have resulted in a rise in the number of families in poverty.

The welfare program underwent substantial reform in 1996 as a result of a collective effort of Bill Clinton (much to the chagrin of many of his supporters) and the Republican Congress.

In general terms (with some exceptions) the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (welfare reform act) ended the welfare entitlement (the federal guarantee of assistance to the poor), requires recipients to find work within two years or perform community service, mandates a minimum of 30 work hours per week (for parents with children over age 6), imposes a lifetime limit on receipt of aid, requires greater state enforcement of tracking down deadbeat dads, and rewards states with financial bonuses for reducing their caseloads.

I honestly do not understand the mindset that holds the poor in such contempt.

And ignoring poverty is like ignoring children. The more you ignore them, the harder things get for them. Children are a large group of people who are put at high risk. Whether it was their parents' "fault" that they exist or are in poverty in the first place is beside the point: The children should be helped. I don't even want to begin to think that there are people in wealthy nations who are willing to allow children to go without food or home. And this brings up another point: There are those on welfare who own homes, and are hoping to god they don't lose them. They are on welfare because some shit hit some fan somewhere and they're trying to hold on and ride out the worst situation of their lives.

In some of the statistics I've looked at in both Canada and the U.S., at least half of the people on welfare are so as a result of job loss, and up to a quarter are so because of a disability. And many of them are there for an average of two years. Sure there are those who abuse the system, there are abusers within every system.

It just so happens that in this particular system there are drug users. I'm sorry, but it's a very common trend to find drug users in low-income situations. Sometimes the drug use is a cause, other times it is a side effect. But to take away their last line of means will only make their situation worse. Even a selfish view would suggest that this isn't desirable; after all, if a drug user can't get money (or help), where do they turn?

I would be against drug testing for welfare recipients; it would seem to be an unnecessary reason to increase the cost of the system. Even if the government could save money by stopping the cash flow to those who they find to be drug users, the overall cost inside and outside of the system (monetary and non-monetary) would be too high.

If you don't like drugs, there are other ways to fight this problem. The best way to do this is to prevent the circumstances under which people decide to do drugs in the first place. You might find this is tied to poverty somehow, but this is another topic.

EDIT:
It boils down to a lack of compassion (which is not a liberal conspiracy); keeping in mind that compassion is rooted in both thought and action.

Not wanting to throw good money after bad does not equal contempt.

I hold liberals who think giving away peoples money for votes and creating a helpless underclass in contempt though.

I'm curious what your opinion is of the '96 Clinton/Republican welfare reform act ?

Do you think the majority of Democrats in the Senate and nearly half the Democrats in the House who voted for the '96 welfare reform bill did it for votes or to perpetuate "a helpless underclass"? (Roll call votes) I'm assuming your arrogant disdain is only for the ones who voted NO.

You said you wanted to educate these people--"training and education"--but how can they learn if they have the risk of losing home and sustenance? Please tell me your solution in more detail. What is a good way to spend the money in light of the situation?

Enough of your conspiracy theory.

+1. Drug use is irrelevant unless it causes harm.

Which brings me back to my original point. I'd be curious to know your view of conservatives who offer tax loopholes to the extremely wealthy in return for votes and favors. I'm of the mindset that the wealthy return the favor in much more tangible ways than the underclass.

I'm also curious to see what the expenditures of My-Hard-Earned-Money are in regards to how much of My-Hard-Earned-Money is given to people who do not need it compared to those who do need it.

On the issue of contempt, why is it so important for you to be angry with liberals?

I wouldn't have a problem with random drug testing for people receiving aid from the government if it wouldn't cost so much money. The system is already sick and corrupted and inefficient without the additional layer.

Besides, drug tests are so ridiculously easy to pass (assuming you know about them a few hours in advance) when you shouldn't that the whole process ends up being more like "do you have enough money to fool the test?"

If we want to actually help people, let's separate the people who want help from the people who want handouts better and stop wasting so much money on the bureaucracy.

Totally off-topic, but: Hey, toaster, nice to see you around.

I personally don't think anyone should be drug tested, except for very few jobs where maximum performance is required.

That being said, since we do live in a world where drug testing is a reality, I fully support drug testing those who would take my money from my pocket to spend for themselves. If you want to take what I have, then you should have to do it on my terms. If you have a problem with them, then go get a job.

I think a piss test in exchange for a gov't handout is reasonable. If you ain't doin' drugs, you ain't got nuttin' to worry about!

It's one thing to whore your privacy out to a corporation for money, but the government? Isn't this what the 4th, 5th, 14th, etc amendments were made for? I hardly believe it would pass a constitutional test, even if it were somehow a good idea, though I suppose anything is possible with the current Supreme Court.

What is it about drugs that gets drug warriors so fired up? I think it all goes back to our religious heritage. Because it's all right for people on welfare to sit around watching their big-screen TVs and drinking beer all day, but by God, if they're smoking marijuana heads will roll.

I would support such a thing, simply by anecdotal experience.

I was approached one time outside of a Village Inn (as we were going in) by a man who said he was hungry. He looked like a man who was once well-to-do, wearing a once nice collared shirt that was dirty and worn with overuse. He asked me for some money so he could run across the street and get food.

When I told him that I'd order him a meal inside (where it was also warm) if he wanted to sit with us, he rather vehemently declined. He kept insisting that he could cook and that he could make better food than Village Inn.

To me, it was an obvious ploy to get drug money in the guise of food money. While he might have legitimately been bemoaning the poor quality of VI (it's not exactly high class food), I reasoned that if anyone who was truly starving wouldn't refuse food of any sort, particularly as cold as it was that day.

In a similar way, I think anyone who is in TRUE need for immediate monetary relief (welfare, etc..) should be willing to do certain things to ensure to the ones gifting it that it is being used as they intend it to be. Drug testing, mandatory education classes, etc, etc.

It might not be the best anecdote, but it's the one I think of whenever I think about social programs such as welfare.

I think that recreational drugs are fine, and I even support the legalization of some. But that's for me. I don't support my charitable donation being used so that someone ELSE can do drugs. I provide charitable support because I want them to be able to live a safer, healthier life, not so that they can have a drug habit. If they want to have one, then more power to them - just not on my dime.

I'm some what torn on this issue. First I think it's kind of a slippery slope that I would tend not to want to tread down. However...

My personal thoughts on drug use are more libertarian then conservative or liberal. You want to smoke pot, crack, smack whatever... as long as you're an adult have at it. Hell legalize all of it. Prohibition didn't work on booze and I don't think it's working on drugs. Do away with this entire 'so called" war on drugs. The money could be spent in much more logical ways, IMO.

However, if you need assistance from the government because you can't obtain or maintain employment I don't think it's unreasonable to look at substance abuse as an issue. I've know many people who drink socially without issue. I've also known people who let drinking ruin just about ever aspect of their lives. I don't think there's that much difference with recreational drug use. If this is causing you to need assistance from other tax payers then I don't see why you shouldn't have to maintain and prove your sobriety to get that assistance.

If I have to take random drug tests at my school or for my work, they should too.

The only reasoning I see against doing so is the cost.

Simple, if you don't like the policy and such, then don't accept free money from the government.

Its not forcing people to be tested, its forcing people to be tested in order to receive handouts.