CurlTalk

Should drug testing be mandatory for welfare recipients?

spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
(Any kind of need-based public assistance/entitlement)

Discuss.

«134

Comments

  • theliothelio Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    i dont have time for a long answer right now. but a quick responds is no. who will cover the cost of the drug test and if they do not offer help to get off the drug what is the point?
  • SpringcurlSpringcurl Posts: 8,002Registered Users
    Under the premise that they'll save money by not giving money to drug addicts? No, since that turns out not to be true.

    WELFARE DRUG TEST COSTS MORE MONEY THAN IT SAVES

    But you can't tell people who believe otherwise anyway. They'll always believe what they want regardless facts.
    TWINKLES.gifTWINKLES.gifTWINKLES.gif

    Obamacare is not a blueprint for socialism. You're thinking of the New Testament. ~~ John Fugelsang



  • cmb4314cmb4314 Posts: 984Registered Users
    (Any kind of need-based public assistance/entitlement)

    Discuss.

    Not sure. On one hand, you have to pass a drug test to get most jobs, so I see the argument. I need to be drug free to get my check to live off of, so it's not unreasonable to expect that from others as well.

    On the other hand, it can get dicey and discriminatory.
  • KilajoKilajo Posts: 786Registered Users
    Sure, let's do it for everyone receiving government assistance. So, that includes those getting:

    Medicaid
    Medicare
    CHIP
    Social Security
    Federal Financial Aid
    Any kind of federal grant (including grants for small business)
    US Politicians (if they aren't already tested)
    Those receiving earned income tax credits
    Supplemental security income for the elderly and poor
    Those receiving child care, energy and other assistance
    Drug test all vets for as long as they receive federal assistance (life?)
    Public school children, teachers and administrators
    Etc.

    Get my point? This is dumb.





    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App
  • claudine19claudine19 Posts: 4,486Registered Users
    If it's not economically sound, then it's being proposed for moral reasons, which is a slippery slope, imo.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Dogs and nature abhor a vacuum.
    http://geaugadoggy.wordpress.com
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Kilajo wrote: »
    Sure, let's do it for everyone receiving government assistance. So, that includes those getting:

    Medicaid
    Medicare
    CHIP
    Social Security
    Federal Financial Aid
    Any kind of federal grant (including grants for small business)
    US Politicians (if they aren't already tested)
    Those receiving earned income tax credits
    Supplemental security income for the elderly and poor
    Those receiving child care, energy and other assistance
    Drug test all vets for as long as they receive federal assistance (life?)
    Public school children, teachers and administrators
    Etc.

    Get my point? This is dumb.





    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App

    I don't really get the "point" bc almost everyone in the groups above are either who I am referring to in my question or were already required to get drug tests while they were earning their benefits.

    You're not really making a point w/ regard to my question...just fleshing out some groups to possibly be included or that had been incuded.

  • MunchyMunchy Posts: 5,206Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Kilajo wrote: »
    Sure, let's do it for everyone receiving government assistance. So, that includes those getting:

    Medicaid
    Medicare
    CHIP
    Social Security
    Federal Financial Aid
    Any kind of federal grant (including grants for small business)
    US Politicians (if they aren't already tested)
    Those receiving earned income tax credits
    Supplemental security income for the elderly and poor
    Those receiving child care, energy and other assistance
    Drug test all vets for as long as they receive federal assistance (life?)
    Public school children, teachers and administrators
    Etc.

    Get my point? This is dumb.





    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App

    I don't really get the "point" bc almost everyone in the groups above are either who I am referring to in my question or were already required to get drug tests while they were earning their benefits.

    You're not really making a point w/ regard to my question...just fleshing out some groups to possibly to be included or that had been incuded.

    I don't think it was directed at you, I think the "point" was that many people often think of government assistance as limited to TANF/EBT/WIC/Section 8, and don't realize that so many other people (maybe even them!) are also considered to be a recipient of government assistance.
  • KilajoKilajo Posts: 786Registered Users
    Kilajo wrote: »
    Sure, let's do it for everyone receiving government assistance. So, that includes those getting:

    Medicaid
    Medicare
    CHIP
    Social Security
    Federal Financial Aid
    Any kind of federal grant (including grants for small business)
    US Politicians (if they aren't already tested)
    Those receiving earned income tax credits
    Supplemental security income for the elderly and poor
    Those receiving child care, energy and other assistance
    Drug test all vets for as long as they receive federal assistance (life?)
    Public school children, teachers and administrators
    Etc.

    Get my point? This is dumb.





    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App

    I don't really get the "point" bc almost everyone in the groups above are either who I am referring to in my question or were already required to get drug tests while they were earning their benefits.

    You're not really making a point w/ regard to my question...just fleshing out some groups to possibly to be included or that had been incuded.

    That wasn't directed at you at all. I thought you were simply opening this up for discussion. I was discussing.

    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App
  • KilajoKilajo Posts: 786Registered Users
    claudine19 wrote: »
    If it's not economically sound, then it's being proposed for moral reasons, which is a slippery slope, imo.

    ITA, and that's why I don't like it.

    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App
  • KilajoKilajo Posts: 786Registered Users
    Munchy wrote: »
    Kilajo wrote: »
    Sure, let's do it for everyone receiving government assistance. So, that includes those getting:

    Medicaid
    Medicare
    CHIP
    Social Security
    Federal Financial Aid
    Any kind of federal grant (including grants for small business)
    US Politicians (if they aren't already tested)
    Those receiving earned income tax credits
    Supplemental security income for the elderly and poor
    Those receiving child care, energy and other assistance
    Drug test all vets for as long as they receive federal assistance (life?)
    Public school children, teachers and administrators
    Etc.

    Get my point? This is dumb.





    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App

    I don't really get the "point" bc almost everyone in the groups above are either who I am referring to in my question or were already required to get drug tests while they were earning their benefits.

    You're not really making a point w/ regard to my question...just fleshing out some groups to possibly to be included or that had been incuded.

    I don't think it was directed at you, I think the "point" was that many people often think of government assistance as limited to TANF/EBT/WIC/Section 8, and don't realize that so many other people (maybe even them!) are also considered to be a recipient of government assistance.

    This!

    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App
  • Who Me?Who Me? Posts: 3,181Registered Users
    Interesting.

    FOR drug testing:
    • People who could otherwise work but are just blowing their money on drugs shouldn't get money from the government
    • Most people get their money from jobs, and jobs often require drug-testing, so the people who can't get jobs should also be required to get drug-testing in order to get money
    AGAINST drug testing:
    • Who cares about the validity of the reasons, it costs too much money to drug test welfare recipients
    • People get government aid from all kinds of programs for all kinds of reasons, so why should welfare require drug testing, and not any of those other programs.
    • Testing people and withholding welfare money if they're on drugs, without offering assistance to get off drugs, will just create a major problem with homelessness, etc., that will hurt society.




    Personally, I completely understand the "I work for my money and pay taxes, I don't want those taxes to go to drug addicts who could be working instead" feeling, but in practice it's just not that simple. I think it's just one more area where the "obvious" answer isn't practical or really that obvious at all once you have all the facts. Other examples along the same lines: "You don't want kids to get pregnant, just tell them not to have sex and withhold all access to birth control", and "Let's outlaw abortion, just give the baby up for adoption, there are plenty of people out their who will want it!". Totally not as simple as it seems, and doesn't work, either.
    "I don't know! I don't know why I did it, I don't know why I enjoyed it, and I don't know why I'll do it again!" -BART SIMPSON
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Munchy wrote: »
    Kilajo wrote: »
    Sure, let's do it for everyone receiving government assistance. So, that includes those getting:

    Medicaid
    Medicare
    CHIP
    Social Security
    Federal Financial Aid
    Any kind of federal grant (including grants for small business)
    US Politicians (if they aren't already tested)
    Those receiving earned income tax credits
    Supplemental security income for the elderly and poor
    Those receiving child care, energy and other assistance
    Drug test all vets for as long as they receive federal assistance (life?)
    Public school children, teachers and administrators
    Etc.

    Get my point? This is dumb.





    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App

    I don't really get the "point" bc almost everyone in the groups above are either who I am referring to in my question or were already required to get drug tests while they were earning their benefits.

    You're not really making a point w/ regard to my question...just fleshing out some groups to possibly to be included or that had been incuded.

    I don't think it was directed at you, I think the "point" was that many people often think of government assistance as limited to TANF/EBT/WIC/Section 8, and don't realize that so many other people (maybe even them!) are also considered to be a recipient of government assistance.

    Well, I definitely do distniguish btwn TANF etc and the retirement benefits earned during the course of someone's miltary service or public school teaching career, etc.

    But yes, soldiers and teachers and many gov't employees have to submit to drug tests, so it's not like anyone is asking a TANF recipient to do something totally unreasonable.

  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Who Me? wrote: »
    Interesting.

    FOR drug testing:
    • People who could otherwise work but are just blowing their money on drugs shouldn't get money from the government
    • Most people get their money from jobs, and jobs often require drug-testing, so the people who can't get jobs should also be required to get drug-testing in order to get money
    AGAINST drug testing:
    • Who cares about the validity of the reasons, it costs too much money to drug test welfare recipients
    • People get government aid from all kinds of programs for all kinds of reasons, so why should welfare require drug testing, and not any of those other programs.
    • Testing people and withholding welfare money if they're on drugs, without offering assistance to get off drugs, will just create a major problem with homelessness, etc., that will hurt society.



    Personally, I completely understand the "I work for my money and pay taxes, I don't want those taxes to go to drug addicts who could be working instead" feeling, but in practice it's just not that simple. I think it's just one more area where the "obvious" answer isn't practical or really that obvious at all once you have all the facts. Other examples along the same lines: "You don't want kids to get pregnant, just tell them not to have sex and withhold all access to birth control", and "Let's outlaw abortion, just give the baby up for adoption, there are plenty of people out their who will want it!". Totally not as simple as it seems, and doesn't work, either.

    Medicaid pays for substance abuse treatment and related expenses. So the idea that there is no means of treatment is just wrong.

  • NetGNetG Posts: 8,116Registered Users
    No, because it becomes a government-forced search of a person who has given no reason for suspicion. There are already so many violations of our rights thanks to things like the Patriot Act, that it is yet further erosion of rights.

    An employer wishing to drug test (including government jobs) is different to me than this.


    That said, I still feel strongly that if someone needs assistance because they are on non-necessary drugs they should be SOL, but I don't know how to resolve those two issues.
    The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
    -Speckla

    But at least the pews never attend yoga!
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    claudine19 wrote: »
    If it's not economically sound, then it's being proposed for moral reasons, which is a slippery slope, imo.

    Definitely slippery.

    But is it any different than preventing food stamps (SNAP) and WIC Checks from being used to buy alcohol or tobacco?

    I don't think the concept public assistance is necessarily one of economic soundness. More like functional necessity?

  • KilajoKilajo Posts: 786Registered Users
    Munchy wrote: »

    I don't really get the "point" bc almost everyone in the groups above are either who I am referring to in my question or were already required to get drug tests while they were earning their benefits.

    You're not really making a point w/ regard to my question...just fleshing out some groups to possibly to be included or that had been incuded.

    I don't think it was directed at you, I think the "point" was that many people often think of government assistance as limited to TANF/EBT/WIC/Section 8, and don't realize that so many other people (maybe even them!) are also considered to be a recipient of government assistance.

    Well, I definitely do distniguish btwn TANF etc and the retirement benefits earned during the course of someone's miltary service or public school teaching career, etc.

    But yes, soldiers and teachers and many gov't employees have to submit to drug tests, so it's not like anyone is asking a TANF recipient to do something totally unreasonable.

    Yea well I didn't realize discharged vets have to undergo drug testing for the length of their lifetime benefits. That's news to me, but then I'm not a vet.

    And since you didn't state in your OP an argument pro or con absolutely noone could have made an argument for or against what you believe.

    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App
  • TrenellTrenell Posts: 3,562Registered Users
    They tried that crap here in Florida. Epic fail. Waste of time and resources.
  • redcelticcurlsredcelticcurls Posts: 17,502Registered Users
    My military pension will come from the taxpayers the same way someone's food stamps do. Even more so, since my pension will cost more. No one will suggest drug testing me every month before I get my check. It all boils down to disparaging the poor as opposed to checking on everyone receiving government benefits.
    Kiva! Microfinance works.

    Med/Coarse, porous curly.
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    NetG wrote: »
    No, because it becomes a government-forced search of a person who has given no reason for suspicion. There are already so many violations of our rights thanks to things like the Patriot Act, that it is yet further erosion of rights.

    An employer wishing to drug test (including government jobs) is different to me than this.


    That said, I still feel strongly that if someone needs assistance because they are on non-necessary drugs they should be SOL, but I don't know how to resolve those two issues.

    It wouldn't be forced. The person being tested would voluntarily give permission in exchange for receiving the benefits and only for as long as he/she was receiving the benefits. The same as with a job.

  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Kilajo wrote: »
    Munchy wrote: »

    I don't think it was directed at you, I think the "point" was that many people often think of government assistance as limited to TANF/EBT/WIC/Section 8, and don't realize that so many other people (maybe even them!) are also considered to be a recipient of government assistance.

    Well, I definitely do distniguish btwn TANF etc and the retirement benefits earned during the course of someone's miltary service or public school teaching career, etc.

    But yes, soldiers and teachers and many gov't employees have to submit to drug tests, so it's not like anyone is asking a TANF recipient to do something totally unreasonable.

    Yea well I didn't realize discharged vets have to undergo drug testing for the length of their lifetime benefits. That's news to me, but then I'm not a vet.

    And since you didn't state in your OP an argument pro or con absolutely noone could have made an argument for or against what you believe.

    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App

    An argument for or against what I believe?

  • KilajoKilajo Posts: 786Registered Users
    Who Me? wrote: »
    Interesting.

    FOR drug testing:
    • People who could otherwise work but are just blowing their money on drugs shouldn't get money from the government
    • Most people get their money from jobs, and jobs often require drug-testing, so the people who can't get jobs should also be required to get drug-testing in order to get money
    AGAINST drug testing:
    • Who cares about the validity of the reasons, it costs too much money to drug test welfare recipients
    • People get government aid from all kinds of programs for all kinds of reasons, so why should welfare require drug testing, and not any of those other programs.
    • Testing people and withholding welfare money if they're on drugs, without offering assistance to get off drugs, will just create a major problem with homelessness, etc., that will hurt society.



    Personally, I completely understand the "I work for my money and pay taxes, I don't want those taxes to go to drug addicts who could be working instead" feeling, but in practice it's just not that simple. I think it's just one more area where the "obvious" answer isn't practical or really that obvious at all once you have all the facts. Other examples along the same lines: "You don't want kids to get pregnant, just tell them not to have sex and withhold all access to birth control", and "Let's outlaw abortion, just give the baby up for adoption, there are plenty of people out their who will want it!". Totally not as simple as it seems, and doesn't work, either.

    Medicaid pays for substance abuse treatment and related expenses. So the idea that there is no means of treatment is just wrong.

    If you can't get medicaid because you're on drugs which is the premise of this ridiculous proposal, then you wouldn't get medicaid to assist you in treatment.

    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App
  • sarah42sarah42 Posts: 4,034Registered Users
    Kilajo wrote: »
    Sure, let's do it for everyone receiving government assistance. So, that includes those getting:

    Medicaid
    Medicare
    CHIP
    Social Security
    Federal Financial Aid
    Any kind of federal grant (including grants for small business)
    US Politicians (if they aren't already tested)
    Those receiving earned income tax credits
    Supplemental security income for the elderly and poor
    Those receiving child care, energy and other assistance
    Drug test all vets for as long as they receive federal assistance (life?)
    Public school children, teachers and administrators
    Etc.

    Get my point? This is dumb.





    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App

    I don't really get the "point" bc almost everyone in the groups above are either who I am referring to in my question or were already required to get drug tests while they were earning their benefits.

    You're not really making a point w/ regard to my question...just fleshing out some groups to possibly be included or that had been incuded.

    Do these groups all really have mandatory drug testing? I didn't when I was a public school teacher, nor did I when I received federal student loans. My dad does not to draw his Social Security retirement benefits, and my colleagues whose salaries are funded by federal grants do not.
    ehLB.jpg
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Kilajo wrote: »
    Who Me? wrote: »
    Interesting.

    FOR drug testing:
    • People who could otherwise work but are just blowing their money on drugs shouldn't get money from the government
    • Most people get their money from jobs, and jobs often require drug-testing, so the people who can't get jobs should also be required to get drug-testing in order to get money
    AGAINST drug testing:
    • Who cares about the validity of the reasons, it costs too much money to drug test welfare recipients
    • People get government aid from all kinds of programs for all kinds of reasons, so why should welfare require drug testing, and not any of those other programs.
    • Testing people and withholding welfare money if they're on drugs, without offering assistance to get off drugs, will just create a major problem with homelessness, etc., that will hurt society.


    Personally, I completely understand the "I work for my money and pay taxes, I don't want those taxes to go to drug addicts who could be working instead" feeling, but in practice it's just not that simple. I think it's just one more area where the "obvious" answer isn't practical or really that obvious at all once you have all the facts. Other examples along the same lines: "You don't want kids to get pregnant, just tell them not to have sex and withhold all access to birth control", and "Let's outlaw abortion, just give the baby up for adoption, there are plenty of people out their who will want it!". Totally not as simple as it seems, and doesn't work, either.

    Medicaid pays for substance abuse treatment and related expenses. So the idea that there is no means of treatment is just wrong.

    If you can't get medicaid because you're on drugs which is the premise of this ridiculous proposal, then you wouldn't get medicaid to assist you in treatment.

    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App

    Ppl on "welfare" generally have medicaid cards or can opt into the health programs like CareSource, etc.

    I guess the idea is that if it is discovered a person receiving these benefits is abusing drugs and cannot stop on their own, they can get treatment. For free. Thru Medicaid.

  • KilajoKilajo Posts: 786Registered Users
    Kilajo wrote: »

    Well, I definitely do distniguish btwn TANF etc and the retirement benefits earned during the course of someone's miltary service or public school teaching career, etc.

    But yes, soldiers and teachers and many gov't employees have to submit to drug tests, so it's not like anyone is asking a TANF recipient to do something totally unreasonable.

    Yea well I didn't realize discharged vets have to undergo drug testing for the length of their lifetime benefits. That's news to me, but then I'm not a vet.

    And since you didn't state in your OP an argument pro or con absolutely noone could have made an argument for or against what you believe.

    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App

    An argument for or against what I believe?

    Yes. You evidently were sensitive to my first post AS IF it was an argument with you or what you believe. Since it was impossible for anyone to discern which way you leaned on this issue from your OP it was pretty unreasonable for you to think my comment was directed at you.

    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App
  • PoPo Posts: 2,607Registered Users
    Alcohol and tobacco aren't food so of course you can't use food stamps or WIC vouchers to pay for them. You can use cash assistance to pay for those though.

    Most of the really strung out addicts I know don't even receive cash assistance any more because 1) they lost custody of their children a long time ago and/or 2) they never re-certify for their benefits because they are strung out on drugs.

    I know drug addicts who sell their food stamps. But I also know a lot of typically law abiding citizens who sell their food stamps because their cash assistance is too low. I know people who get $700/mo worth of food stamps, but only $142/mo in cash assistance.
    3c/4a
  • spiderlashes5000spiderlashes5000 Posts: 17,495Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    sarah42 wrote: »
    Kilajo wrote: »
    Sure, let's do it for everyone receiving government assistance. So, that includes those getting:

    Medicaid
    Medicare
    CHIP
    Social Security
    Federal Financial Aid
    Any kind of federal grant (including grants for small business)
    US Politicians (if they aren't already tested)
    Those receiving earned income tax credits
    Supplemental security income for the elderly and poor
    Those receiving child care, energy and other assistance
    Drug test all vets for as long as they receive federal assistance (life?)
    Public school children, teachers and administrators
    Etc.

    Get my point? This is dumb.





    Sent from my PC36100 using CurlTalk App

    I don't really get the "point" bc almost everyone in the groups above are either who I am referring to in my question or were already required to get drug tests while they were earning their benefits.

    You're not really making a point w/ regard to my question...just fleshing out some groups to possibly be included or that had been incuded.

    Do these groups all really have mandatory drug testing? I didn't when I was a public school teacher, nor did I when I received federal student loans. My dad does not to draw his Social Security retirement benefits, and my colleagues whose salaries are funded by federal grants do not.

    Everyone in the teachers union here has to pass a drug test to be hired. As do all gov't employees who are in unions.

    But again, I said NEED-BASED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. I wasn'[t specifically talking about teachers and ppl drawing SS. Looking thru that list, yes, most could be included as belonging to groups who also had to be tested. But that was not my question.

    I don't consider loans in this category at all. I personally have no problem w/ college student at state-supported schools having to take drug tests. But again, that was not my question.

  • MunchyMunchy Posts: 5,206Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Side note: I'm a typical law abiding citizen who would be happy to buy food stamps from someone if it meant a deal for me. $200 worth of food for $50? Yes, please.
  • PoPo Posts: 2,607Registered Users
    Also, what kind of drug testing would be most cost effective? I'm thinking urine analysis.

    You can smoke crack on Monday and drop clean the following week. Or you could have smoked weed 3 mos ago and still drop dirty today. UAs are not as reliable as people think.
    3c/4a
  • PoPo Posts: 2,607Registered Users
    Munchy wrote: »
    Side note: I'm a typical law abiding citizen who would be happy to buy food stamps from someone if it meant a deal for me. $200 worth of food for $50? Yes, please.

    I've never purchased food stamps from a stranger because they really could be on drugs with hungry babies at home for all I know, but I have a cousin who gets like $1300/mo in food stamps. She's paid me for babysitting or other services in groceries.
    3c/4a
«134