States to consider drug testing for welfare recipients

Fantastic idea. There are a ton of people who take their check and blow it on illegal drugs. Hopefully this will weed (pardon the pun) those people out of the system.
 
didn't fully read.. but what happens when they fail the drug test? they're just homeless? probably a bigger burden to society than being on welfare. alternatively we could send them to some type of prison-esque rehab (something they'd really want to avoid, but would get them clean if they weren't -- can't be like typical rehab, that's too cushy).. though they'd be even more expensive than the welfare, which many would probably oppose. it's not an easy issue.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Fantastic idea. There are a ton of people who take their check and blow it on illegal drugs. Hopefully this will weed (pardon the pun) those people out of the system.[/quote]


No kidding.

This should have been done a long time ago. I know people who sell food stamps for cash for booze or drugs and it is more widespread than you might think. It's a terrible waste when there are people really hurting that could use it legitimately.
 
[quote name='Koggit']didn't fully read.. but what happens when they fail the drug test?[/QUOTE]

They either pick rehab or homeless, but continuing to enable their drug usage and lack of productivity is probably the worst thing you could do for them.
 
[quote name='shieryda']
Also, can you buy booze and cigs with food stamps?[/QUOTE]

Of course not. But some people sell the food stamps to others for a bit less than face value so they have cash they can use on booze, cigarettes etc., as GuilewasNK mentioned above.
 
[quote name='Ruined']They either pick rehab or homeless.[/quote]


Yep.

The government doens't need to be in the business of supporting peoples habits, drugs or otherwise. You want drugs? Earn your own damn money for it. Just like we do for our cheapass game habit.
 
This is probably going to cost more to implement than it would save and of course pot will be the only drug tested for.
 
[quote name='Msut77']This is probably going to cost more to implement than it would save and of course pot will be the only drug tested for.[/QUOTE]

Even the cheapest instant test kits test for the 10-12 most popular drugs.

While it may cost more in the short run, in the long run it would save a bundle as it encourages more responsible usage of the limited money you receive.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']Yeah... It's another one of those where you're screwed if you do and you're screwed if you don't.[/QUOTE]

It is more than likely the politicians involved just want to look good.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Even the cheapest instant test kits test for the 10-12 most popular drugs.

While it may cost more in the short run, in the long run it would save a bundle as it encourages more responsible usage of the limited money you receive.[/QUOTE]

I did community service at my local welfare office during which I worked with MULTIPLE caseworkers. From what they told me, welfare recipients spend their cash on frivolous things that AREN'T drugs (for the most part). The biggest culprits were junk food, pizzas, soda, cigs, cheap alcohol, personal entertainment (DVDs,Videogames), and brand name clothes.

Drugs were actually really low on the list, and it was usually people who had prior addictions.

Personally,I think they should spend the money on whatever gives them the most utility. If they don't make an effort to improve their situation, however, then cut them off.
 
^I'd hope that's how it works to begin with.

I'd hope these days at least that politicians recognizes they don't have the luxury of looking good anymore.
 
[quote name='Msut77']This is probably going to cost more to implement than it would save and of course pot will be the only drug tested for.[/quote]

True. Unfortunately, that's the way the "war on drugs" works.
 
Reality's Fringe;5678230]I did community service at my local welfare office during which I worked with MULTIPLE caseworkers. From what they told me said:
This is VERY fuckING TRUE. My high school sweetheart's mother had 5 kids from 4 different fathers and so she got a lot of welfare and child support cash. I was a personal witness to her receiving child support money from one of the fathers, and promptly spending it on McDonalds and DVDs. They also had a big TV, internet, cell phones, etc, and were feeding the children breakfast cereal for dinner while the adults got a real dinner. She was grade A white trash.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Msut77']This is probably going to cost more to implement than it would save and of course pot will be the only drug tested for.[/quote]

Yeah my old boss said it cost $2,000 to drug test someone. Which is why new hires were put on a probation period before being officially hired and drug tested.
The test itself wasn't the expensive part it was the pay for the lab persons time and the labs time. And apparently if a person tests positive it then costs more to prove it was them.

States have had the authority to do this since 1996. But most have chosen not to because it was cost-ineffective according to a quick google search.
Alabama decided instead to put the money towards job training for welfare recipients.
 
[quote name='Ruined']While it may cost more in the short run, in the long run it would save a bundle as it encourages more responsible usage of the limited money you receive.[/QUOTE]
How would you measure that?
 
[quote name='speedracer']How would you measure that?[/QUOTE]

In ideological points. It's the same philosophy behind "if we sponsor and pass mandatory minimum/three strikes/truth in sentencing laws, then the crime rate will decline." Which proved disastrously untrue such that anybody who thinks this way is immediately discredited in my view as a threat to empiricism, and, thus, reality.

I think we should test welfare recipients for lottery tickets, budweiser, sports illustrated and pizza hut if we actually want to get to the root of the problem.

In all seriousness, this is coming at a suspicious time. Now that unemployment is rising, we're getting a whole new class of people applying for government subsidies. This is just a method of denying government aid to those who have lost their jobs in the past 18 months, while we pat their bosses on the back for $165 million in bonuses.

As a matter of fact...

[quote name='Ruined']Fantastic idea. There are a ton of people who take their check and blow it on illegal drugs. Hopefully this will weed (pardon the pun) those people out of the system.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Ruined']While it may cost more in the short run, in the long run it would save a bundle as it encourages more responsible usage of the limited money you receive.[/QUOTE]

TAKE AWAY THEIR MONEY! THEY'RE LEECHES ON SOCIETY! TEST THEM! ASK QUESTIONS! MAKE THEM PROVE THEY NEED IT!

Meanwhile, in the alternate universe vs forum (and, by alternate universe, I mean "yesterday" and "here"):

[quote name='Ruined']I think the "outrage" from this event stems from the primary people receiving said bonuses were in the same dept as the ones partially responsible for some of the poor decisions by AIG. I say partially because the government also shares blame not only in their handling of Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae but also over the many years of their actions which partially led to the predictament we're in now.

Granted the bonuses look fishy. But then again, it is sorta scary that the govt can step in and take away your check (even if undeserved).


Finally, I see many post like these CEOs are the big elite moneymakers in our society. While a select few are, most of their salaries pale in comparison to that of the average Hollywood star/sports star. Should the government step in and pay back our season tickets if our team goes without winning a game using the salaries of players on said underperforming team? Should an actor be taxed at 50% if his movie tanks and it costs the studio bigtime? Obviously those situations are different than what is going on with AIG since you are dealing with entirely private companies and the gov't now owns a stake in AIG + the taxpayers are paying for it, but for the actual workers in said company it very much may feel like the same thing.

Also, from my experience when the government gets involved generally things get worse, not better. I see Geithner's massive oversight proposals as quite scary, as a result.[/QUOTE]

DON'T TAKE THEIR MONEY! WHAT A WASTE OF TIME! THEY'RE NOT RICH BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A-ROD!

Dude, you're absolutely fucking shameless, or absolutely fucking pathetic. Your pick. Special bonus for you: you can pick both if you want.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Even the cheapest instant test kits test for the 10-12 most popular drugs.

While it may cost more in the short run, in the long run it would save a bundle as it encourages more responsible usage of the limited money you receive.[/QUOTE]

I think the point he was trying to make is that most of those drugs are out of your system so quickly that a drug test isn't going to catch them. Marajuana sticks around long enough to get people to post positive tests.

Edit: I love when myke goes off on people like that.
 
So let me get this straight. Government now wants to limit who gets free handouts, specifically no drug users? Or am I missing something here?

If Government wants to limit who they give money out to, that's fine with me, but expand it a little and make them turn in receipts to show what they spent it on.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']So let me get this straight. Government now wants to limit who gets free handouts, specifically no drug users? Or am I missing something here?

If Government wants to limit who they give money out to, that's fine with me, but expand it a little and make them turn in receipts to show what they spent it on.[/quote]

I concur. This money should be given to those who cannot afford the "basic necessities", not for beer, nudie mags and cigarettes.
 
[quote name='shieryda']
Also, can you buy booze and cigs with food stamps?[/QUOTE]
It depends. In states that still give actual stamp booklets all you have to do is send each of your 5 kids through the line with a one dollar food stamp and a ten cent food item. They each get 90 cents back in change, which gives mom enough for a pack of cigarettes. A lot of states have debit type cards now though, which takes care of this problem.
 
I started writing this nasty post and halfway through I decided I would just delete it all and let him hang himself.

And then you sucked up all my self-satisfaction. Myke, you're such a bastard. Nice post. You said it better than I was going to.
 
There needs to be more investigation into who really qualifies for welfare. I have a self-employed uncle who cheats on his taxes to receive welfare benefits for his family. Meanwhile he blows any extra money he has on random toys. If he didn't receive welfare benefits, he wouldn't have that extra money to blow.
 
The problem is when those people become homeless and need a trip to the emergency room, guess who is paying for it? Keeping people housed is actually saving money compare to the medical bill.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']There needs to be more investigation into who really qualifies for welfare. I have a self-employed uncle who cheats on his taxes to receive welfare benefits for his family. Meanwhile he blows any extra money he has on random toys. If he didn't receive welfare benefits, he wouldn't have that extra money to blow.[/QUOTE]
Right. We need regulation and enforcement.

Right libertarians/conservatives/small government supporters?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Right. We need regulation and enforcement.

Right libertarians/conservatives/small government supporters?[/quote]

Hmmm. The idea is incredibly bad, but I'll pretend it's great.

First and foremost, let's look at the Constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare except for citizens using drugs, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I think it is weird the Founding Fathers used bold right there, but who am I to argue?

Second, all drug users will choose rehab. Nobody would choose drugs over rehab. On every episode of Intervention, the person chooses rehab AND they never return to their old habits. Rehab is 100% successful. There is never a wait for rehab. We have at least two million spots in rehab available. Rehab is also cheaper than welfare. My mother-in-law receives $70 a month in food stamps. That could pay for six weeks of rehab.

Third and last, homeless people are never violent whether alone or in a group. If we put 10 million new homeless people on the streets, they're all going to accept no when panhandling or those homeless people will be absorbed by their extended families without causing any problems.
 
Some good points. Lets just axe welfare entirely then, or make it a 2-months-and-you're-ineligible-for-2 years program. Problem solved, no drug testing or further gov't intervention needed. Too many people get welfare that are perfectly capable of making money on their own (I know this from firsthand experience).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top