toldailytopic: What do you think of states considering drug testing before receiving

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 13th, 2012 07:43 AM

toldailytopic: What do you think of states considering drug testing before receiving government assistance?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Rusha]

What do you think of states considering drug testing before receiving government assistance?

With the exception of the expense, I think it would be a good thing and would even include random drug tests as a requirement.

 

[Poly]

Opposition has already begun. In Florida, the ACLU is challenging a law passed last year that requires drug testing of welfare recipients. Jason Williamson, an attorney in the organization's Criminal Law Reform Project, said the ACLU is "against any kind of suspicion less drug testing of any population."

Source

Btw, as many here already know.... ACLU= "All Criminals Love Us"

 

[lightbringer]

I think it is long over due.

Unfortunately there are numerous chemicals for sale on the market that will clean up/disguise drug use, so random testing will be necessary and should be kept secret until the individual is actually in the office.

I see no intrusion into any ones privacy by requiring an initial drug test as a requirement to be allowed onto any public assistance, we don't force people to sign up!

As for cost, the individual applying should pay this upfront and can be re-reimbursed once qualified.

 

[Granite]

I understand the appeal, but I question the extra expense and layer of bureaucracy.

 

[Quincy]

I'd have to agree with Granite. It would be nice to see some hardcore evidence that proves drug use is rampant enough among those getting benefits to justify the price tag and growth in government.

 

[bybee]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 13th, 2012 07:43 AM

toldailytopic: What do you think of states considering drug testing before receiving government assistance?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

If a recipient is on drugs the welfare money is going to purchase
more drugs. This is not helpful. This is not the use taxpayers wish to pay for. It is the children, in these cases, who need our protection and assistance.

 

[kmoney]

Is the concern here about the money being used to buy drugs? If so, there might be better ways to avoid this. Like letting the aid be good for only certain things instead of giving them cash that they can use for anything.

 

[bybee]

Is the concern here about the money being used to buy drugs? If so, there might be better ways to avoid this. Like letting the aid be good for only certain things instead of giving them cash that they can use for anything.

I believe that is the way it used to be handled. (I am subject to correction on this) But, it was considered demeaning to the recipients for a variety of reasons.
And the recipients who are using the money to meet the needs of their families might consider it demeaning.
Drug testing could be applied across the board and discreetly.

 

[PureX]

toldailytopic: What do you think of states considering drug testing before receiving government assistance?

It's a silly waste of time and money intended to promote the idea that Obama is stealing from our paychecks and giving it all to layabouts, dope fiends, and criminals. It's just the republican party stirring up the bigots, racist, and haters for the election. It's how they get their "base" out to vote.

 

[Quincy]

Is the concern here about the money being used to buy drugs? If so, there might be better ways to avoid this. Like letting the aid be good for only certain things instead of giving them cash that they can use for anything.

Where I live kmoney, things are taken care of in that way. Rental assistance is paid to the landlord directly, food stamps comes on a card that is only usable in certain establishments and etc etc. I think the only thing that isn't is unemployment or social security checks, stuff like that. The problem with some things like food stamps though, is people are getting drugs by buying food for the dealer. it's all the same because the dealer doesn't have to buy their own food. I know people who will trade half of their food stamp allotment to get pills or cocaine.

It's rare though, it just isn't reality that drug use is as rampant as some want us to think. So if less than 20% of people getting benefits actually use them to get drugs, is it worth the cost to us to test everyone to catch them?

 

[Granite]

Instead of drug testing the needy why aren't we arresting some plutocrats?

 

[bybee]

Instead of drug testing the needy why aren't we arresting some plutocrats?

Could we do both?

 

[Philovitist]

We're looking at this from the wrong perspective. The question isn't "Wouldn't it be great if we could make sure people aren't spending welfare money on drugs?" but "Is it worth the expense to make sure people aren't spending welfare money on drugs?"

The answer to this question depends on whether using welfare money to buy drugs is actually a problem or not.

Because we obviously won't know until we start doing drug tests, I propose that we perform a trial phase for the program and, by observing changes in the flow of people coming in for welfare money or by observing the frequency of positive results, decide long-term policy from there.

If the money saved through the program exceeds that lost from funding, we finally have good Republican policy.

 

[Dena]

would those who use medicinal marijuana in a state where it's legal be exempt if they have a doctor's prescription?

quite frankly, I guess I don't care. people waste their money on loads of things and drugs are just one of them. being drug tested doesn't stop them from spending money on pop, junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, fancy cell phones, silly magazines, shoes, whatever. many times assistance is for the children in the family too so what happens if the mom can't get it because she's on cocaine? we take her kids? that's an added expensive for the government and her children probably won't do much better being away from her anyway.

 

[PureX]

We're looking at this from the wrong perspective. The question isn't "Wouldn't it be great if we could make sure people aren't spending welfare money on drugs?" but "Is it worth the expense to make sure people aren't spending welfare money on drugs?"

The answer to this question depends on whether using welfare money to buy drugs is actually a problem or not.

Because we obviously won't know until we start doing drug tests, I propose that we perform a trial phase for the program and, by observing changes in the flow of people coming in for welfare money or by observing the frequency of positive results, decide long-term policy from there.

If the money saved through the program exceeds that lost from funding, we finally have good Republican policy.

But there are even more questions involved.

What do we do about those people who do use some of their public aid to buy drugs? Will cutting them off stop them from taking the drugs? How will they get money to eat and buy drugs without aid? Won't they just become criminals? Will the increase in crime due to this policy cost us more than the policy saves? Would we be better served all around if we put the money proposed to drug test the poor into addiction recovery programs for poor people, instead?

The problem with our endless desire to punish all the "bad people" is that we really aren't any good at it. We almost always end up missing the mark and making things worse for everyone. The very people who are always crying and whining about the onset of the "nanny state" are now the very people who want to expand the government to spy and punish people for being poor and sick. Essentially, for being human.

Drug and alcohol addiction are as old as mankind itself. It's not going to be stopped by allowing the government to forcibly drug test poor people. So the best it will ever be able to accomplish is to further punish those who are already suffering from addiction just to make some of us feel better?

 

[Stripe]

Just get rid of welfare. :idunno:

 

[Lighthouse]

toldailytopic: What do you think of states considering drug testing before receiving government assistance?

It sounds like a step in the right direction of making sure the money isn't going to those who would use it for drugs.

But it's incremental and the government is just going to charge the rest of us, so it's not a change in how much of our money they're taking.

Is the concern here about the money being used to buy drugs? If so, there might be better ways to avoid this. Like letting the aid be good for only certain things instead of giving them cash that they can use for anything.

As Quincy said, many of them buy food for their dealers in exchange for drugs, etc.

The problem with some things like food stamps though, is people are getting drugs by buying food for the dealer. it's all the same because the dealer doesn't have to buy their own food. I know people who will trade half of their food stamp allotment to get pills or cocaine.

Exactly.

would those who use medicinal marijuana in a state where it's legal be exempt if they have a doctor's prescription?

MJ is still a federal offense, even if the state says it's legal. And while I'm on the fence on medical pot I am opposed to the way it's being handled, because they are allowing it for almost any illness. But this is a prime example of why I am against the idea of states' rights.

...what happens if the mom can't get it because she's on cocaine? we take her kids?

If she's on coke she should have her kids taken away anyway.

Just get rid of welfare. :idunno:

:thumb:

 

[Eeset]

Where does it end? Should we send in the drones to wipe out the homeless and unemployed?

 

[Alate_One]

It's a silly waste of time and money intended to promote the idea that Obama is stealing from our paychecks and giving it all to layabouts, dope fiends, and criminals. It's just the republican party stirring up the bigots, racist, and haters for the election. It's how they get their "base" out to vote.

^^ This. Besides where it was done it picked up extremely few people. (96% passed)

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said. As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said. And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases. “We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.

Source

If you're going to drug test recipients of "government paychecks" then all elected officials need to be tested as well. Besides, it's likely to be unconstitutional.