States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Peejay]

Sounds great. If I have to take one to earn my money, they should have to take one to get it.

Well sure, that's an easy thing to say. Now, just go ahead and tell us how much more money you think we should spend on test. Hell, we'll just take the test cost out of your check.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I like this!!! How about we also limit the types of food they can get on food stamps too. I'm sick of people having a cart full of junk and expensive meat and using their Oregon Trail card (FS card) to pay for it. Then when asked to use a club card for discounts, they say nah, not like I'm paying for it. Set it up like WIC.

WIC works because it is an extremely limited program. Food stamps isn't, and by definition can't be. The two serve completely different purposes in completely different scopes, and you would create a much more expensive bureaucratic nightmare than we already have, for no other purpose than your petty little "gotcha" desire to "teach those freeloaders a lesson, by God!" Get over it and stop trying to micromanage people's lives.

 

[Peejay]

This is something that I would support. I really dont want my taxes going to support someone who uses my money to buy drugs. Now, I also agree that pot should be legalized, but I do not think the two are related.

I fully support tobacco companies and cigarette sales. I think tobacco products should be used as a tax cow. Anytime states or the Feds need money, they should hike the taxes on tobacco and alcohol. If and when the legalize pot, they should tax pot sales in exactly the same way.

How are they "using your money to buy drugs"? Do you think drug dealers are authorized recipients of EBT cards? And with all due respect, THEY are not the ones who are going to really suffer from the red tape nightmare this is going to create.

The geniuses here have suggested taking those kids away from their unfit parents.

I bet you know better than me, what's the cost per child for state and foster care now days ? I think foster care runs about $950 a month per child. Not sure what state care runs. Wow.....we're gonna bust the budget to satisfy these saddistic pricks and hold up a few welfare checks.

But hey, what's the satisfaction of a little inflicted misery worth ?

 

[Ravi]

Was I not dipped in bbq sauce enough to keep your attention span long enough to receive a better retort than that?

soggy, if you'd say something intelligent it would be worth the bother of responding to. Sadly, you can't. You can't even admit that you are a fascist that thinks only those you disagree with should be harassed.

btw, Warren Buffett disagrees with you. IMO, he is one hell of a lot more intelligent than you are.

"

I'm paying the lowest tax rate that I've ever paid in my life," Buffet said. "Now, that's crazy."

Further, Buffett, the world's richest person as ranked by Forbes Magazine with wealth totaling $62 billion, also said the U.S. Government should increase taxes on the wealthy to help pay for the recently-passed bank rescue, which is designed to end the financial crisis.

Warren Buffett: I should be paying more in federal taxes - BloggingStocks

yes...one rich dude supports your view and he is now the "source"

lame

Well, yeah, if Warren Buffet's views are what we are discussing he most definitely is the source, dimwit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey, take the kids and let them be wards of the state. We're already paying for their living expenses, right?

Oh, good idea! Because we CERTAINLY have facilities and resources to rip apart that many families, and it CERTAINLY makes lots of sense to do so. That's certainly in the best interests of the children, isn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Use the money for drugs instead of food? Just exactly how do you think this system works? You think drug dealers take EBT cards?

 

[alan1]

Well, again, removing someone's kids is extreme and a drug test can nevr prove that anyone spent one dime of welfare money on drugs. Maybe they grow their own pot. Maybe the guys brother stops by and burns one with him. Maybe the guys that he rides home from work with burn one.

OTOH, the rules in effect, where drug felons are denied welfare, works perfectly. No doubt when you catch them with the goods. It's a pretty sure thing, with no trouble of flase positives or any of the other problems with urine test.

So sure, if they are spending their welfare money on dope, take it away from them. They have no right to do so. But a urine test doesn't show that anyone misused welfare or food stamps. It means they have a positive urine test and that is all you can conclude.

And I'm people on heroin, crack, crystal meth, cocaine, oxy contin, etc just have friends supplying their habits to?

Oh no, drugs like cocaine and crack leave the body so quickly that detection of these addicts is really tough. Pot is the EASY one to catch and we still miss it a lot of times. Take note of the guy in this thread that favors testing but then desribes how he knows when to smoke and when not to so he can defeat the test. And he is a test administrator.

Again, I don't think anyone should be allowed to use food stamps for dope. But you just aren't going to catch them with a piss test. Despite Shoguns rambling on about how it would work, he admits that he gets away with using drugs and knows how to beat the test. Think about that. It is ineffective and costly. There is no reason to do it unless you have the same hard on for welfare recipients that Shogun has.

It's random testing, it's not like they are going to test everybody.
Besides, urine tests are useless, I'm in favor of them taking a hair sample.

Drug testing cost. Cost to drug test. Company Employee Drug Testing Cost.

Hair specimen testing is about $115-$150 per test nationally. Hair can indicate drug-use (can be "effective") as far back as 90 days. Most drugs are detectable in urine for only 1-4 days; exceptions are marijuana and less-so, PCP.

At $115-$150 a pop for random testing, it it's not all that expensive. If we assume that the number of drug users collecting welfare is the same percentage as the general population (6% according to this, Drug Use Is Down In America - CBS News ). A family averages $500 per month in food stamps ( Welfare Payments and Allowance Benefits ). At the most expensive cost of $150 it would coat $15,000 to test 100 people. Say you caught 6 of them. 6 families would collect $36,000 in food stamps in one year.
That's not a losing proposition. And that only considers food stamps, it doesn't even include other benefits like housing etc.

 

[Ravi]

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?

Use the money for drugs instead of food? Just exactly how do you think this system works? You think drug dealers take EBT cards?

Sigh, it's painful to agree with you.

And Mr. P...why exactly would you punish children MORE if they are already being punished by their parents.

 

[Ravi]

And I'm people on heroin, crack, crystal meth, cocaine, oxy contin, etc just have friends supplying their habits to?

Oh no, drugs like cocaine and crack leave the body so quickly that detection of these addicts is really tough. Pot is the EASY one to catch and we still miss it a lot of times. Take note of the guy in this thread that favors testing but then desribes how he knows when to smoke and when not to so he can defeat the test. And he is a test administrator.

Again, I don't think anyone should be allowed to use food stamps for dope. But you just aren't going to catch them with a piss test. Despite Shoguns rambling on about how it would work, he admits that he gets away with using drugs and knows how to beat the test. Think about that. It is ineffective and costly. There is no reason to do it unless you have the same hard on for welfare recipients that Shogun has.

It's random testing, it's not like they are going to test everybody.
Besides, urine tests are useless, I'm in favor of them taking a hair sample.

Drug testing cost. Cost to drug test. Company Employee Drug Testing Cost.

Hair specimen testing is about $115-$150 per test nationally. Hair can indicate drug-use (can be "effective") as far back as 90 days. Most drugs are detectable in urine for only 1-4 days; exceptions are marijuana and less-so, PCP.

At $115-$150 a pop for random testing, it it's not all that expensive. If we assume that the number of drug users collecting welfare is the same percentage as the general population (6% according to this, Drug Use Is Down In America - CBS News ). A family averages $500 per month in food stamps ( Welfare Payments and Allowance Benefits ). At the most expensive cost of $150 it would coat $15,000 to test 100 people. Say you caught 6 of them. 6 families would collect $36,000 in food stamps in one year.
That's not a losing proposition. And that only considers food stamps, it doesn't even include other benefits like housing etc.

You need to factor in the cost of putting their kids in foster care...and the resulting spike in the crime rate.

Social programs don't only benefit the poor...they benefit us all by keeping kids and their parents from committing crimes to survive.

 

[alan1]

Oh no, drugs like cocaine and crack leave the body so quickly that detection of these addicts is really tough. Pot is the EASY one to catch and we still miss it a lot of times. Take note of the guy in this thread that favors testing but then desribes how he knows when to smoke and when not to so he can defeat the test. And he is a test administrator.

Again, I don't think anyone should be allowed to use food stamps for dope. But you just aren't going to catch them with a piss test. Despite Shoguns rambling on about how it would work, he admits that he gets away with using drugs and knows how to beat the test. Think about that. It is ineffective and costly. There is no reason to do it unless you have the same hard on for welfare recipients that Shogun has.

It's random testing, it's not like they are going to test everybody.
Besides, urine tests are useless, I'm in favor of them taking a hair sample.

Drug testing cost. Cost to drug test. Company Employee Drug Testing Cost.

Hair specimen testing is about $115-$150 per test nationally. Hair can indicate drug-use (can be "effective") as far back as 90 days. Most drugs are detectable in urine for only 1-4 days; exceptions are marijuana and less-so, PCP.

At $115-$150 a pop for random testing, it it's not all that expensive. If we assume that the number of drug users collecting welfare is the same percentage as the general population (6% according to this, Drug Use Is Down In America - CBS News ). A family averages $500 per month in food stamps ( Welfare Payments and Allowance Benefits ). At the most expensive cost of $150 it would coat $15,000 to test 100 people. Say you caught 6 of them. 6 families would collect $36,000 in food stamps in one year.
That's not a losing proposition. And that only considers food stamps, it doesn't even include other benefits like housing etc.

You need to factor in the cost of putting their kids in foster care...and the resulting spike in the crime rate.

Social programs don't only benefit the poor...they benefit us all by keeping kids and their parents from committing crimes to survive.

Nice assumption you made there. Without welfare, they will turn to crime? Or are you saying that kids raised in foster care all turn to crime?
You seem to have a pretty negative assessment of people on welfare, and of children in foster care.

 

[alan1]

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?

Use the money for drugs instead of food? Just exactly how do you think this system works? You think drug dealers take EBT cards?

Do you think people living on welfare have the easter bunny deliver drug money to them? Or is it the tooth fairy? (maybe that explains why crackheads are missing so many teeth).
Quit being so naive.

 

[Care4all]

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

Nothing different about than than the rules proposed for federal bailouts. You take federal money, you accept federal rules, which can be draconian in many cases. If it works for Wall St, it works for Main St. and the trailer-park, too.

How about we DRUG TEST every Banker and those in the banking industry instead? Anyone that works for a bank and is getting paid via bailout money should be drug tested.

Oh, and add the auto industry workers as well...

and you might as well add the Oil companies, since they too are getting corporate wellfare, our tax dollars as well....

Then add those receiving social security as well, please drug test them too....

And EVERY PERSON getting their healthcare from their jobs, because they too are getting federal money for their healthcare....


How about every Senator, Congressmen and their aids....they too are getting tax payer's money


It can go on and on...

BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......would you and others EVER SUGGEST such a thing?

of course not, you only want to invade the POOR'S PRIVACY...you FAVOR the richer ones that get our tax monies......

THIS IS WRONG and is an invasion of privacy....

if someone is breaking the law and using drugs, they should be arrested if they are caught by the police and charged with the crime, but to DRAG NET test a specific group of people, of whom MOST ARE NOT ILLEGAL DRUG USERS, is an invasion of privacy.

I thought Repubs were suppose to be for LESS GOVERNMENT over us....

WAS THIS JUST A LIE?

please answer this, was it a lie and you really are not the party that believes in less government?

For the life of me, I do not understand republicans and what they are suppose to believe in because it changes with every breath....it seems.

Care

 

[Peejay]

Oh no, drugs like cocaine and crack leave the body so quickly that detection of these addicts is really tough. Pot is the EASY one to catch and we still miss it a lot of times. Take note of the guy in this thread that favors testing but then desribes how he knows when to smoke and when not to so he can defeat the test. And he is a test administrator.

Again, I don't think anyone should be allowed to use food stamps for dope. But you just aren't going to catch them with a piss test. Despite Shoguns rambling on about how it would work, he admits that he gets away with using drugs and knows how to beat the test. Think about that. It is ineffective and costly. There is no reason to do it unless you have the same hard on for welfare recipients that Shogun has.

It's random testing, it's not like they are going to test everybody.
Besides, urine tests are useless, I'm in favor of them taking a hair sample.

Drug testing cost. Cost to drug test. Company Employee Drug Testing Cost.

Hair specimen testing is about $115-$150 per test nationally. Hair can indicate drug-use (can be "effective") as far back as 90 days. Most drugs are detectable in urine for only 1-4 days; exceptions are marijuana and less-so, PCP.

At $115-$150 a pop for random testing, it it's not all that expensive. If we assume that the number of drug users collecting welfare is the same percentage as the general population (6% according to this, Drug Use Is Down In America - CBS News ). A family averages $500 per month in food stamps ( Welfare Payments and Allowance Benefits ). At the most expensive cost of $150 it would coat $15,000 to test 100 people. Say you caught 6 of them. 6 families would collect $36,000 in food stamps in one year.
That's not a losing proposition. And that only considers food stamps, it doesn't even include other benefits like housing etc.

You need to factor in the cost of putting their kids in foster care...and the resulting spike in the crime rate.

Social programs don't only benefit the poor...they benefit us all by keeping kids and their parents from committing crimes to survive.

The total cost of the testing would be hard to determine for sure. Saying that a hair test cost $100 is like saying that tickets to the show are $10 so that's all you take with you.....and run out of gas before you even get there.

 

[alan1]

The total cost of the testing would be hard to determine for sure. Saying that a hair test cost $100 is like saying that tickets to the show are $10 so that's all you take with you.....and run out of gas before you even get there.

Except that I said the cost of a hair test was $115-$150, and I provided the link to prove it. Then I based my calculations on the high end of $150.
Take your strawman elswhere.

 

[Peejay]

The total cost of the testing would be hard to determine for sure. Saying that a hair test cost $100 is like saying that tickets to the show are $10 so that's all you take with you.....and run out of gas before you even get there.

Except that I said the cost of a hair test was $115-$150, and I provided the link to prove it. Then I based my calculations on the high end of $150.
Take your strawman elswhere.

It's no strawman. It's the law of unintended consequences. We will have to pay around $900 a month for every child that ends up in the charge of the state due to this. Add that into your cost and God knows what other black holes this would create for money to be sucked into.

 

[Ravi]

It's random testing, it's not like they are going to test everybody.
Besides, urine tests are useless, I'm in favor of them taking a hair sample.

Drug testing cost. Cost to drug test. Company Employee Drug Testing Cost.
At $115-$150 a pop for random testing, it it's not all that expensive. If we assume that the number of drug users collecting welfare is the same percentage as the general population (6% according to this, Drug Use Is Down In America - CBS News ). A family averages $500 per month in food stamps ( Welfare Payments and Allowance Benefits ). At the most expensive cost of $150 it would coat $15,000 to test 100 people. Say you caught 6 of them. 6 families would collect $36,000 in food stamps in one year.
That's not a losing proposition. And that only considers food stamps, it doesn't even include other benefits like housing etc.

You need to factor in the cost of putting their kids in foster care...and the resulting spike in the crime rate.

Social programs don't only benefit the poor...they benefit us all by keeping kids and their parents from committing crimes to survive.

Nice assumption you made there. Without welfare, they will turn to crime? Or are you saying that kids raised in foster care all turn to crime?
You seem to have a pretty negative assessment of people on welfare, and of children in foster care.

I do have a negative assessment of kids in foster care. But tell me, if you deny parents welfare because they smoked weed, what else are you going to do with the kids and how much will it cost?

 

[alan1]

You need to factor in the cost of putting their kids in foster care...and the resulting spike in the crime rate.

Social programs don't only benefit the poor...they benefit us all by keeping kids and their parents from committing crimes to survive.

Nice assumption you made there. Without welfare, they will turn to crime? Or are you saying that kids raised in foster care all turn to crime?
You seem to have a pretty negative assessment of people on welfare, and of children in foster care.

I do have a negative assessment of kids in foster care. But tell me, if you deny parents welfare because they smoked weed, what else are you going to do with the kids and how much will it cost?

I'm pretty sure it would cost less to take care of the kids, than to take care of the kids + the parents + the parent's drug habit. How about you?

 

[Peejay]

You need to factor in the cost of putting their kids in foster care...and the resulting spike in the crime rate.

Social programs don't only benefit the poor...they benefit us all by keeping kids and their parents from committing crimes to survive.

Nice assumption you made there. Without welfare, they will turn to crime? Or are you saying that kids raised in foster care all turn to crime?
You seem to have a pretty negative assessment of people on welfare, and of children in foster care.

I do have a negative assessment of kids in foster care. But tell me, if you deny parents welfare because they smoked weed, what else are you going to do with the kids and how much will it cost?

Considering what the war on drugs has cost us, the enormous amount of money we spend to jail marijuana smokers and the near ZERO impact on drug use, I'd say there is no reasoning with this either. We'll all just pay for this, just like the failed war on drugs.

 

[Peejay]

Nice assumption you made there. Without welfare, they will turn to crime? Or are you saying that kids raised in foster care all turn to crime?
You seem to have a pretty negative assessment of people on welfare, and of children in foster care.

I do have a negative assessment of kids in foster care. But tell me, if you deny parents welfare because they smoked weed, what else are you going to do with the kids and how much will it cost?

I'm pretty sure it would cost less to take care of the kids, than to take care of the kids + the parents + the parent's drug habit. How about you?

Nope. the family will get nowhere near $900 per child on welfare. And that's just what foster parents get, not including the administrative cost per child.

 

[Ravi]

Nice assumption you made there. Without welfare, they will turn to crime? Or are you saying that kids raised in foster care all turn to crime?
You seem to have a pretty negative assessment of people on welfare, and of children in foster care.

I do have a negative assessment of kids in foster care. But tell me, if you deny parents welfare because they smoked weed, what else are you going to do with the kids and how much will it cost?

I'm pretty sure it would cost less to take care of the kids, than to take care of the kids + the parents + the parent's drug habit. How about you?

I think it would cost more to take the kids away from their parents, not only in money but in overall social good. But please do post a plan listing the costs of keeping kids in foster care or orphanages vs. letting them stay with parents that might smoke a joint...it would be much easier to decide.