States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Shogun]

Finally, something I can get on board with.

So someone should get denied benefits just because they smoked a joint? Wow, you republican religous wackos are really amazing. So in short, you are allowed to get drunk as hell, pound a couple 40's and get shitface drunk and get your benefits. But smoke a joint and you are not worthy of getting your money. Fucking amazing how stupid our society is. We can't get anything right.

Would you call me a religious wacko, you dumb son of a whore? This isn't about alcohol being legal while pot is not. THIS is about the priorities of someone taking money from the state. If you have the money to smoke a bowl then you don't need tax money. If you can't SAY NO TO A JOINT PASSED YOUR WAY then you are clearly not a burden that the state should carry.


Wanna know the punchline? I smoke pot EVERY DAY. Wanna know what is even finnier? I CAN SUPPORT MYSELF. And, richer still? IF I LOSE MY JOB THEN SMOKING POT IS OUTWEIGHED BY GETTING A JOB.. that will more than likely piss test me anyway. so, if you can't stop smoking bud during the period that you are out of work and living off of the tax payer tit.. well, too fucking bad.

 

[Shogun]

no i do not agree with it..... we have a right to privacy....or we are suppose to and this is a slippery slope, why should the 92% who do not use drugs be subjected to this invasion of privacy or humiliated and made to take a test that is NONE of your or the government's business, these people ARE THE GOVERNMENT if it is the government of the people?

utter bullshit!!!!

you don't have a right to privately use tax based money for illegal purposes. This includes using your personal food money to buy a sack just because you get food stamps.

 

[Shogun]

no i do not agree with it..... we have a right to privacy....or we are suppose to and this is a slippery slope, why should the 92% who do not use drugs be subjected to this invasion of privacy or humiliated and made to take a test that is NONE of your or the government's business, these people ARE THE GOVERNMENT if it is the government of the people?

utter bullshit!!!!

Of course, the slippery slope is a short one to testing for SS benefits, drivers license, whatever else the governement wants to use as an excuse to pry into your personal life.

Not to mention that out of the small percentage that test positive, an even smaller percentage are addicts or even regular users. The percentage that fits this largely imaginary profile of rampant food stamp trading for drugs is miniscule. There are more parents out there beating their kids senseless, while sober, than trading their food stamps for drugs.

hey, I posted MY evidence.. where is yours?

 

[Shogun]

no i do not agree with it..... we have a right to privacy....or we are suppose to and this is a slippery slope, why should the 92% who do not use drugs be subjected to this invasion of privacy or humiliated and made to take a test that is NONE of your or the government's business, these people ARE THE GOVERNMENT if it is the government of the people?

utter bullshit!!!!

If those 92% have nothing to hide, why should they care about an "invasion of privacy?"

Because the government has no damn business invading the privacy of citizens (even if it is just ot make sure they're obeying the law) and it's just so very wrong.

au contraire.. ask Catholic Charities all about the role of government perogative when you suckle from the tax payer tit. Don't like it? Get the fuck off of food stamps.

 

[Father Time]

None of you whiny assed RIGHT TO PRIVACY hypocrites were standing up for John McCain's right to privacy when you were demanding that his medical records be made public.. hypocrites!

I never cared about the man's medical records, although I do think that "if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't care about government invading privacy" is a dumb argument.

 

[raceright]

Dammit I forgot why I wanted to post here. A lot of you guys will indentify with this.
My wife took the kids and went to New York 7 years ago. She has 3 degrees, but when she left she said she was sick of working and was going to New York to live on welfare that I would pay for. She said the state of New York would take me to the cleaners.
Well, she was right. I am supposed to pay 800 a month iun child support, but since she is on welfare, by the time the state adds on their administration fees, its really 1140 a month.
She sits at home and smokes dope all day that she buys with her welfare money. I was able to pay what I was supposed to until illness(diabetes then a heart attack) caused me to be unable to work any more. I petitioned the court to change the amount, but they refuse to hear it. Twice the state of New York issued a warrant to arrest me for non-support. Twice they requested that Arizona arrest and extradite me to New York. Twice Navajo County Sherrifs deputies showed up to arrest me and the first time refused to take me from a hospital bed to do it, the second time they refused to take responsibility for providing my medical care during the arrest or transport to NY. I am planning on working this summer and am told that the state of New York will garnish every cent I make. My employer says he can't withold more than is allowed by AZ law, 65% of the amount over some basic poverty threshold.
In the meantime my miserable K**T of an ex-wife, otherwise known as the wicked witch of the east, is sitting home everyday smoking her state funded pot.
I hope they do test people on welfare for drugs and alchohol, and tobbacco and everything else that is a waste of taxpayer money. I hope they send them to jail if they fail more than once. I hope my ex is first in and last out......

Bad choice on women

 

[Peejay]

The really sweet thing about this is that Shogun is a criminal. I hope you get busted, lose your job and then test positive when you get hungry and need assistance.

 

[Peejay]

Dammit I forgot why I wanted to post here. A lot of you guys will indentify with this.
My wife took the kids and went to New York 7 years ago. She has 3 degrees, but when she left she said she was sick of working and was going to New York to live on welfare that I would pay for. She said the state of New York would take me to the cleaners.
Well, she was right. I am supposed to pay 800 a month iun child support, but since she is on welfare, by the time the state adds on their administration fees, its really 1140 a month.
She sits at home and smokes dope all day that she buys with her welfare money. I was able to pay what I was supposed to until illness(diabetes then a heart attack) caused me to be unable to work any more. I petitioned the court to change the amount, but they refuse to hear it. Twice the state of New York issued a warrant to arrest me for non-support. Twice they requested that Arizona arrest and extradite me to New York. Twice Navajo County Sherrifs deputies showed up to arrest me and the first time refused to take me from a hospital bed to do it, the second time they refused to take responsibility for providing my medical care during the arrest or transport to NY. I am planning on working this summer and am told that the state of New York will garnish every cent I make. My employer says he can't withold more than is allowed by AZ law, 65% of the amount over some basic poverty threshold.
In the meantime my miserable K**T of an ex-wife, otherwise known as the wicked witch of the east, is sitting home everyday smoking her state funded pot.
I hope they do test people on welfare for drugs and alchohol, and tobbacco and everything else that is a waste of taxpayer money. I hope they send them to jail if they fail more than once. I hope my ex is first in and last out......

Bad choice on women

I didn't want to rub it in, but I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Shogun]

Anyone taking government assistance more than six months in a two year period should be subject to random testing. If indeed you are in need of government assistance you have no business buying drugs in the first place it is not a monetarily sound decision and is systematically canceling out the reason you applied for assistance.
You do have rights as an American citizen to privacy. However, once you apply for assistance you are now becoming subject to the conditions of the assistance in the same manner you become subject to interest if you take out a loan.

In the Army we are subject to random UA's. All you are doing is peeing in a cup. Big freakin deal. I dont get any extra benefits for doing it. However, it must be done in order for me to recieve my paycheck. Who are you to tell me that the person who I am paying every month should not be subject to the same drug test that I am in order to recieve money that I earned?

It is a big deal. You gave away your rights in the army. We didn't.

Oh yea, they said on the Ron Reagan show too that all you are going to find is pot smokers if you drug test, because most drugs leave the system in a couple days. Maybe the person isn't buying the pot. Ever think of that?

Also, what about the kids? Dad may smoke a joint. That doesn't mean let the kids go without food.

PS. If we are collecting unemployment, we earned it. We paid into it. So we deserve it, no matter what we spend the money on.

unemployment benes that may QUALIFY for are not a right. Food stamps are not a RIGHT either. You can't buy alcohol with food stamps. The same should apply when unemployed pot heads subsidize their drug habit with food stamp money.


And, let's be honest, if a parent chooses pot over food then they are hardly parents worth throwing up red herrings over.

 

[Shogun]

no i do not agree with it..... we have a right to privacy....or we are suppose to and this is a slippery slope, why should the 92% who do not use drugs be subjected to this invasion of privacy or humiliated and made to take a test that is NONE of your or the government's business, these people ARE THE GOVERNMENT if it is the government of the people?

utter bullshit!!!!

If those 92% have nothing to hide, why should they care about an "invasion of privacy?"

Because the government has no damn business invading the privacy of citizens (even if it is just ot make sure they're obeying the law) and it's just so very wrong.

This is no more a privacy issue than when employers drug test job candidates. And yes, it's VERY RIGHT when tax money is directed at those who need it more than they need to smoke a joint.

 

[Shogun]

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site - notwithmytaxdollars.com - that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states - Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia - tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

My Way News - States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

what about their children? Make the kids starve because of their parents mistakes, good idea!

plenty of non-pot smoking families want to adopt...

 

[raceright]

None of you whiny assed RIGHT TO PRIVACY hypocrites were standing up for John McCain's right to privacy when you were demanding that his medical records be made public.. hypocrites!

I never cared about the man's medical records, although I do think that "if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't care about government invading privacy" is a dumb argument.

Its this simple everyone wants the other guy's life messed with but not theres...Goverment messes with business
then business complains and next ya know Goverment is messing with pot smokers then if you get my point once one is messed with
because of your rantings believe you me your turn is comming..
the group you hear the least from is the smart ones and the ones who complain the most get it shoved up there ass..

 

[Shogun]

no i do not agree with it..... We have a right to privacy....or we are suppose to and this is a slippery slope, why should the 92% who do not use drugs be subjected to this invasion of privacy or humiliated and made to take a test that is none of your or the government's business, these people are the government if it is the government of the people?

Utter bullshit!!!!

agreed. Also, most welfare recipients have children so in reality it is the children we would be punishing. Sometimes americans make me ashamed.

they aren't already being punished when the parents use the money for drugs instead of food?

bingo.

 

[Shogun]

Hye, I know!

We should test welfare CHILDREN for CHOCOLATE use.

We surely wouldn't like to discover that poor children are eating chocolate off the taxpayers dime, now, would we?

Cause that would be really bad if they were happy for a brief moment in their miserable existences, wouldn't it?

These kids need to learn that poverty is crime and understand that they are worthless people that everybody hates.

Cause you know that'll do a lot to help them become productive citizens and what not.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken that exactly what motivated BILL GATES to become so rich, wasn't it?

Excellent idea. If we catch them eating at McD's we should just go ahead and execute them.

If you've got money for fast food but don't have money for food the rest of the week then I guess we've hit upon the fucked up PRIORITIES of someone living off of the tax payer dime, eh? Not that I'm shocked that you rise up as the joan of arc of the mclifestyle.

 

[Peejay]

None of you whiny assed RIGHT TO PRIVACY hypocrites were standing up for John McCain's right to privacy when you were demanding that his medical records be made public.. hypocrites!

I never cared about the man's medical records, although I do think that "if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't care about government invading privacy" is a dumb argument.

Its this simple everyone wants the other guy's life messed with but not theres...Goverment messes with business
then business complains and next ya know Goverment is messing with pot smokers then if you get my point once one is messed with
because of your rantings believe you me your turn is comming..
the group you hear the least from is the smart ones and the ones who complain the most get it shoved up there ass..

Yep. Shogun admits that he is a criminal. But, like the welfare recipients, he believes that he is smart enough to evade the law and get away with smoking pot, so long as he knows when a test is coming and when his own personal code tells him it's OK for him to break the law and get away with it.

He'll get his. Just keep whining.

 

[Shogun]

Its fun watching potheads come unglued as they struggle to justify their existance.

lmao

you might reconsider that post given that a pothead posted this fucking thread, douche.

 

[Shogun]

I'm amazed at how many people think drug addicted welfare moochers is some sort of major problem, without even the slightest shred of data to support such a position.

you may not consider it a problem but tax money spent frivolously IS a problem. Money saved is money earned.. as opposed to money thrown away for the sake of irresponsibility. If you want to donate to pot smoking habits then so be it. You can send your money instead of ours.

 

[Shogun]

Should we also drug test those that receive earned income tax credits and end up getting more money from the IRS than they paid in to begin with?

yes.


earned income tax credits for breeders is a fucking farce anyway.

 

[manu1959]

I'm amazed at how many people think drug addicted welfare moochers is some sort of major problem, without even the slightest shred of data to support such a position.

then everyone will get their money no problem....now won't they....

 

[Shogun]

Secondly, why do so few acknowledge the fact that WE ALREADY take welfare away from convicted drug users ?

I'm not just talking about welfare, I'm talking about any government aid. My half-brother is a convicted felon (many times over), and he still receives his disability. Do you know what his disability is? He fried his brain on drugs. Do you know what he does with his disability? He buys drugs.

That's the type of people that are spending our tax dollars, and I'm sick of it.

Well then, you have invited yourself into the wrong conversation. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS.

If you want to talk about disability, you can start that conversation.

we are specifically talking about FOOD STAMPS. Tell me, why are you not similarly quick to nix the subject of unemployment each time it's brought up thus far?