Some states are proposing drug tests for welfare
 

Some states are proposing drug tests for welfare - MariettaTimes.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Ohio, Community Information - The Marietta Times

I don't know what to think of this. Gut reaction is "It's about time". But part of me agrees with those who say there will be more problems. But if I had to the person making the final decision on this, I may be tempted to go with my gut and then address the problems as they pop up.

There is a fair amount of food stamps traded for alcohol or beer. I'd hope that the debit card system used so widely now has throttled that down, but at one time I heard accounts of people buying food stamps for ten cents on the dollar.

Also with the number of employers using drug testing, this leaves a number of unemployable people perhaps. Would the casual pot smoker then decide to drop the weed and get a job?

I know the welfare system has been something that has helped a great many people through the years. But no doubt it has also been something that has been abused to the point it has left many wanting it overhauled.

Those "caught" by the drug testing should get access to programs for detoxification and counseling. So I agree with that aspect of the article.

I agree that state money should not be spent on drugs; but this doesn't mean we let people destroy themselves and their communities. The money, in this case, should be spent on fixing the problem.

Hmm, I posted a reply to this earlier, but it got lost in the ether I suppose. To summarize, I support the testing with the caveat that a positive drug test does not result in expulsion from the welfare system, but a referral to treatment/counseling/rehab.

This should be followed up with a re-test. A second positive means you are out of the system until you test clean. If you aren't willing to kick a drug habit, or at least try, then why should you expect other people to pay for your food. Fuck that.

This is still a much more liberal policy than most employers. As an employee, I would expect that a positive drug test would result in immediate termination.

When the heinous crime of poppy seed consumption can and does throw a positive for opiates... yeah, and that'll be wonderful. (There have been people ARRESTED AND JAILED flying into or through Dubai for the possession, even in the tread of their shoes, of poppy seeds... Gotta love absolutism)

Whenever there's a new test or new punishment, especially for a 'crime' which really shouldn't be by any objective measure, consider the consequences for the false positives, the administrative mixups, the new ways that will be inventedto game the system, etc, etc, etc...

Should they be tested for eating too much, smoking, not exercising enough, etc, etc also?

Who pays for all these tests? Who apply the tests? (Doctors, nurses or someone much less expensive but with zero clinical or scientific training?) Who manages this? Is there a right of appeal? Does this go under the jurisdiction of a capricious bureaucrat?

14,000 people to be tested in Kansas... say it costs, end-to-end at a very reasonable rate, $200 to test these people.

That's $2.8m for each testing cycle.

Monthly, quarterly, yearly? How are you going to administer this?

It's unreliable. It's draconian. It's expensive. It's easily gamed. It's capricious.

This, frankly, is the very definition of a bad idea.

My cynical mind tells me that somewhere there are a raft of lawmakers on the take from some testing company...

(1st April?)

^^^^^ Ditto^^^^^..and no, I do not believe you are being cynical.

I rarely chime in just to agree with a previous post,
but this time I am.

Now I am craving, one or two, warm danish pastries in the morning,
heavily laden with poppy seeds. (like I used to eat everyday.)

My gut tells me, that putting these types of tests in place,
will exponentially increase my nausea.

Another issue that my wife would point out is losing the services due to mom or dad popping dirty would hurt the children as well.

and forget about how easy it would be instantly throw someone you dislike onto the streets with a little pill or powder...

Are you suggesting that a government representative could use this to discriminate or some other party could sabotage someone's eligibility for assistance by giving them drugs?

I'm suggesting that people don't like each other sometimes and, should the object of a person's ire be dependent on state benefits, it would be incredibly easy to utterly destroy them.

This is a common misconception that has been disproved several times, including on MythBusters. The amount of poppy seeded food needed to produce a false positive is beyond what normal people would consume; even devouring an entire poppy seed loaf didn't get a positive test result. Wikipedia contributions are not always the last word.

I think it's about time someone did this. Being on the government dole is no excuse, nor should it be support, for those who choose to spend it on getting stoned. But, like "Workfare", it'll probably end up dead in the water. Why should my tax dollars pay for one's self-destructive behavior? They already pay for stupid shit.

So what's the alternative? Do you support treatment services instead? Would you like to see a mandatory treatment as a condition for a continued receipt of welfare?

Yep.
The alternative is leaving status quo and hoping things don't get worse.....people with no hope for their own future will sometimes resort to drugs, alcohol, etc., in the mistaken belief it will alleviate the depression somehow. Get them into treatment and counselling before it gets to that point.

jmho...
I don't like the idea of my hard earned money being forcibly removed from me via taxes and given to someone who will use it for narcotics. You may argue that their benefits will be by a government debit card that can only be used for necessities. Don't fool yourself with that. If someone is doing drugs they gave something up to get them. They can barter with their debit card purchases. The government assistance will also free up their more liquid assets for drugs since they don't have to use their cash for food.

If drug tests are required then some will lose welfare because their dope is more important to them. Others will see their need to quit drugs. It's a win-win situation.

Like I said... jmho.

(clean and sober for 20 years last September)

Then no one would ever receive Welfare. And we could use the money to fund schools.



I like this idea.

QFT.

I like the idea. Let the money that we save in a year go toward something else like the testing itself. I'm all for supporting those on hard times. I'm all for the disabled and such, I am, however, not for those who think themselves to be crafty enough to steal from the govt.

I guess the thinking is that those who smoked pot sometime in the last month even if they grow their own do not deserve public assistance along with their spouses and children. There may be some real money to be saved if we cut off all those who get money from the government for testing positive especially if we include prescription drug abuse. Lets start with the polititians and work our way down through all government agencies and contractors before going after the poor.:)

Yes...yes I would. At my former place of employment, we had random drug testing in place. If you tested positive, you were given the option of being shown the door or being placed into a treatment program. If you tested positive a second time...see ya. That seems more than fair to me.

Why are you on food stamps if you smoke(ed) pot ...er any time in the near past? WHat politicians are on welfare? Don't they have a job?

P.S. Not just limited to pot. If you smoke or drink anything at all besides water and air? Why do you deserve food stamps paid by me?

First, the food stamps are paid for by the state, not you. Second, it's not like the values set by welfare payouts consider a "drug money" budget. Drug users aren't taking more than their share to pay for drugs. They're using what little they have given to them to eek out a bit of drugs based on either a habit, an addiction, or a little something to help them get through what is likely to be a miserable existence.

This program will spend more money on welfare to do drug testing (more tax dollars). If this means "savings" on welfare by cutting off funding, do you think the savings will also force all of those drug users to get cleaned up and back on welfare, or do you think they'll resort to other means? If this means drug programs will have increased use, this might also mean more tax dollars. Are you okay with that?

Pot costs almost nothing to grow. Polititians and anyone who works for the government are feeding at the public trough and deserve at least as much scrutiny as the poor. Plus they are most likely in a position to do far more monetary damage than a poor food stamp recipient. This is all about saving money isn't it?

OK, Wikipedia isn't the last word. It does, however, reference its sources, which happen to include one or two journals of medicine or science

But as for other sources... Just one swift googling yields:

How about a university? Medical Mystery: Can Poppy Seeds Influence Drug Tests?
Straight Dope? The Straight Dope: Will poppy-seed bagels cause you to fail a drug test?
Snopes? snopes.com: Poppy Seed Drug Test Results

Oh, and mythbusters is indeed listed as CONFIRMING THAT POPPY SEEDS CAUSE FALSE POSITIVES.

Wikipedia! OH NOES!

Should you want to watch the episode, i'm sure it'll be out there on the tubes or via a torrent of some sort.

How about an article in the New York Times?

So that's that taken care of, eh? Poppy seeds can and do produce false positives.

On to the reviling of those less fortunate than yourself.

I totally agree with you that people on govt support shouldn't be using that money to support a drug habit.

They also shouldn't be using that money to pollute their bodies with poisonous fast food, tobacco, alcohol, pump toxic fumes into the air and pollute my , purchase goods produced outside of their home nation, pay for the electricity to watch dumb shows on TV that degenerate their minds, so on and so forth.

People on welfare should, in effect, become slaves to the state that has so shamefully succumbed to their pitiful desire for a decent existence... _They should_ be ashamed to exist.

Why then do we not set up a whole new system of poor houses?

No family support, no comforts, no sex, no human relationships, no chit chat, combined with an excess of labour and bare minimum of sustenance. That'll surely motivate those in and out of the institutions to engage in behaviour that will most certainly keep them from the poor house! Good, honest, Christian, protestant behaviour! PLUS! Those too useless to find decent employ outside of the institutions for the almost criminally self-negligent will not be allowed to breed for the duration... Thus reducing the surplus population and our need to support them into the never-ending future.

No need for further support, no opportunity for immorality, no possibility of liberties which might encourage some to live a life less rigorous than one's own. Most satisfactory on all levels.

That is, unless you somehow hit hard times. Even Emperors have ended up paupers.

All testing for drugs will do is add cost, bureaucracy and a heavier hand of state-ist authoritarianism to a system that is already a fiscal hindrance and burden to individual liberties.

Even if you leave aside the idea of false positives...

EXPENSE. AUTHORITARIANISM. CAPRICIOUS BUREAUCRACY. GAMING (either to prove innocence or guilt).

All of that little riff back to victoriana may seem strange and offensive, but this rot starts with what they call 'means testing' on this side of the pond, you can only have benefits if you really really need them. Got a house? Sell it. Got a tiny income not enough to support yourself? well you'll have to give that up. Married benefits being less than the combined income of two single people? logic dictates divorce. etc. etc. 'Workfare' has existed in several forms, being utterly compulsory for the young, and always completely useless, expensive and bureaucratic.

These kinds of initiative have only ever increased the overall cost of the system while the restrictions, punishments and denouncements for being poor and/or unfortunate become ever more intolerable over time...

Those Victorian poor/work houses were allowed to exist because those who wielded some power allowed themselves to think of the less well off as almost sub-human. 'Other'. Certainly not something they themselves could ever come close to... So any sort of assistance at all was Christian Charity to an excess and utterly resented by those who made the decisions.

There begins the bind. Treat people like animals and they'll almost all act like animals. Treat people with decency and _some_ will take advantage. I think the cost of those (almost universally ineffective) illiberal policies to eliminate immorality are too steep in terms of mutual brutalisation. The brutalisation of the poor at the hands of the powerful and the brutalisation of the one who wields the whip by their own selfishness.

Frankly, as a total aside, you could reduce drug and drug-related crime dramatically simplyby offering addicts their chosen poison free gratis. A lot less expensive than the costs of crime, insurance, police, justice and prisons... plus a lot less medical costs over time treating the effects of street drugs.

An essay before i realise it, and rambling.

Hadn't understood your point about the politicians thing. Thanks for clarifying. But I wonder though, seeing as pot is illegal, why spend your free time to grow it? Isn't it a drug? Disregard the debates of the effects of pot, cigarettes and other drugs/non drugs there are out there. Shouldn't you be looking for a job?

Food stamps are paid for by You and I indirectly. You and I pay taxes, don't we? I do. And no Baraka. I have lived with a druggie. He was so hopeless he used every means necessary to get what he wants. The food stamp system was easy money for him. He could trade the food for cash anytime. He would go hungry if not for just a fix. If you are living a 'miserable existence' you need to get yourself out of that funk. If it's an illness then you need to seek professional help. Drugs are not the answer.

This program will weed out the people who don't deserve the food stamps. I'm all for some sort of rollover plan to spend what wasn't spent last year on welfare the next year. To finance both the testing and the aid itself. I'm all against those who don't do everything they can to be independent.

Great post tisonlyi.

I'm not really a fan of public assistance, but I do see it as at least necessary in some cases. I'm totally opposed to drug testing, with the only exception being if other people's lives depend on the proper performance of one's job. Even then, the way drug testing works, for anything other than alcohol, it doesn't fufill the purpose of actually protecting the public. If anything it fufils the purpose of policing the behaviour of one's employees when they're off the clock. (since drug testing isn't designed to say whether or not you're high right now, but whether or not you consumed in the last X days.)

In a perfect world, people on assistance would use it as a hand up instead of a hand out. Also if the world could be so perfect, those who realize they need to give up even recreational drugs to get this assistance would become more employable. And to take perfection one more step, the money no longer wasted on those who only wish to be wasted could go to education and hopefully further reduce the need for welfare.


But we aren't so perfect.

I hate your logic. Unassailable, but I hate it non-the-less.

This statement is so disingenuous.:confused: It reminds me of a situation a few years ago in my home town. They were going to put in some new sidewalks, and someone wrote in to the newspaper the he couldn't understand why the taxpayers should have to pay for sidewalks. He thought that the city should pay instead.:shakehead:

Lindy

You example aside, it's more disingenuous to say Xerxys is paying for it.

We all pay taxes; the state spends it on items in a budget. We are not customers of the welfare system. We aren't paying for it as individuals. It is paid for by the state. The difference might seem trivial to you, but it is an important distinction.

To say "I'm paying for your food stamps!" is a bit silly when you consider that what you paid for an individual's food stamps probably amounts to a fraction of a cent.

But let's not get caught up on where the money is coming from; this is more about where it is going and why...and whether it should be stopped.

The state collects monies from companies, corporations, imports and exports (visible and invisible), has a small slight of hand in currency manipulation and all manner of other sources of funds/means of spending that are nothing to do with direct taxation of the people.

Granted, we're all part of the societies from which governments extract their wealth, but thinking like that is... well... social...

My point is not me being angry about loosing my fraction of taxes to the individual who games the system. My point is the person becomes what we in school used to call a "spoiler". A catalyst. One rotten apple... Someone who used to employ unscrupulous tactics in an attempt to get ahead. When he goes unchecked for a very short while, others follow suit. This usually wound up having all of us punished and loose privileges on behalf of a few misfits.

This system will prevent that to some degree... I like to think.

I'd love to see them try. And when are they going to start drug testing the executives of AIG, Citigroup, and all the other recipients of taxpayer aid? What a bunch of hypocrites, not that I'd expect anything less.

I think certain drugs (and cigarettes) should be tested for. If they have money to spend on cigarettes, then they can buy food.

It shouldn't be all or nothing, but they should have a 50% reduction in benefits (unless they complete 10-20 hours of community service a week). Then again, I think anybody on welfare/food stamps should have to volunteer some time to improve the local community. And the government (local, state and national) should set up programs that people can volunteer for.

There are so many things I want to say about this drug testing idea, which will lead me to want to say things about welfare, leading to things about people ON welfare....

I just won't go there.

Then why are you even on this board? The whole point of the TFP is to "go there..."

The whole point is I can also choose to "not go there," yet still state this openly. Anyways, back to the topic.

I'm not going to discuss the addicted and the hardcore user: I'm just going to point out that one can be an infrequent and casual drug user based on what friends may give you during shared usage: you're at a party one Saturday night, someone passes you the bong, Monday morning the State is surprise drug testing you and you're screwed.

I'd also like to say that I'm hearing a certain amount of sniffing high-handedly about the unemployed toking, and I have to say: I smoked some while I was unemployed-- I spent almost all of 2002 out of work-- and it was either my friends smoking me out, or me finishing off what I had left when I was fired from my job, plus maybe one small purchase, using money my grandma gave me for a birthday gift (she specifically said, "have fun with this, and get something that makes you laugh..." you can't blame me for following through on that). Having some herb around to get high with my friends and my girl was a huge lifesaver, because I basically had no other life that year: I didn't go to movies, lost my cable, didn't go out, didn't buy almost anything but groceries and gas. I spent all my time looking for work, and a little toke sure helped pass some otherwise depressing evenings. The implication of all this criticism of the poor using a little money for the drug of their choice is that if you're unemployed and in the shitter enough to need government help, you don't deserve to ever unwind. This, to me, is an utterly American Protestant attitude: we are essentially already condemning the poor as sinful, and wanting to sit back and do a little forgetting of one's misery is just seen as compounding the sin.

I have an enormous problem with the notion that we are essentially saying to our poor, "Bad enough that you're poor, you have no right to try to have a social life, or have a good time while you're poor! You should be spending every waking minute, and maybe every sleeping minute trying to get money!" Never mind that there is little one can do to find work at night or on weekends, and never mind that the poor are not reveling in the experience of poverty, and it might be sheer compassion on our part not to criticize them for whatever it is they can scrape together to chill a little from their miserable existence.

I have no problem with my taxes going to help poor and unemployed people. Frankly, I'm happier with my money going to them than to fund the making of super-secret ultra-invisible Stealth Bombers that apparently anyone can potshot out of the sky, or idiotic schemes to shoot down missiles with other missiles (next time someone fires a gun at you, try defending yourself by shooting the bullet!), or the local congressman's pork project. There is, IMHO, very little excuse for government or taxes if not to help those least able to help themselves. And we help our poor so grudgingly, so uncaringly, so quickly embracing "Not My Problem!" to describe them. We say, "Don't use my taxes to help the poor! Let the Church do it! Let the nonprofits do it! Maybe I'll help the poor, but I'll do it some other way: I won't have my money used to help people by the organization that has the most information about everyone in the country and what their needs are!" And now we're going to go further: "You shouldn't be able to get your few government dollars to eke out the meager crumbs of survival while you struggle to find a job unless you can prove you share the pure moral vision uniformly embraced by 435 members of Congress (a large number of whom secretly take drugs or are addicted to alcohol)!" "I won't help you, Mr. Poor Person, because I disapprove of your lifechoices when it comes to entertainment!" Maybe we should also demand that poor people demonstrate their ability to play Parcheesi and Monopoly and Hungry Hungry Hippos while drinking wholesome lemonade and listening to Pat Boone, to ensure that they're living "appropriately" on "our" money.

Or we could just acknowledge that it is right and just and compassionate to help the poor and the unlucky and those who have gotten royally screwed by our tanked economy, just like God/Jesus/Buddha/some humanistic atheist guys said we should. And no poor person ever cared if their help came from the government or an NGO, so long as it came, and therefore, if it's our tax dollars at work, we shouldn't quibble, but rather let it go. And we might also choose to have some compassion for the hell that poverty and unemployment puts people through, and decide that they might deserve a toke from time to time just as much as they desk jockey who sits around all day on the phone with his legs up, and pulls down 300 G's a year to do it. Maybe more.




/rant

Levite, that wasn't a rant. Very valid actually. So, you have mentioned the casual user, I mentioned the addict. I'll be honest, I disapprove of both. But my question to you is, should they be held in the same regard? Should there be a way of distinguishing between the two? Do you dis/approve of the test because of either of the two users named above?

I ask because I know first hand the system is usually taken advantage of.

:rolleyes:

I'm starting to think that this forum doesn't need a thread on demographics when we have threads like this and this and this.

touche.

Didn't really want a breakdown ... wanted to know what his position was on the issue as a whole. What do you >> Manic and Mixed, think about the testing though???? And why?

Admittedly, my post was off topic but I really couldn't add anything that wasn't already said better and much more eloquently than tisonlyi.

However, I will say that non-issues like this are nothing more than smokescreens offered by politicians and the last ditch efforts of everyday citizens to mask the fact that the little guy has no control over his own destiny and his perceived power of change has been spread so thin as to be rendered ineffective.

In this climate, the attention that these non-issues are given is nothing short of offensively stupid.