States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[slackjawed]

"Even if it cost more to take it away than it does to give it. "

That's a very valid point. To take it a little further, I have always understood that it costs more to pay for the administration of welfare than the actual amount of the benefits. I wonder if that can be verified.
different issue though.

 

[editec]

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.

That really sucks, man. I am sorry to hear it.

Apparently the states don't quite understand that an unemployed spouse (gender irrelevant) simply cannot PAY child support.

Basically what the states are doing to too many people in your predicament is driving them into the underground economy.

Have you ever considered a career in the hemp industry?

No unions, no taxes, no garnished wages...just the occassional drive by shooting or stint in prison.

And you'll meet the nicest people, too!

 

[Ravi]

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?

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Have mentioned this before, but I lived in Switzerland for 6 years, Basel. During that time they began a policy of providing drugs (lots, but cannot recall the restrictions) if addicts also took the substitute in order to gradually wean them off the real thing. At the same time they were on social assistance.

This kind of thing feels good and right to many well-meaning people. But I doubt they have experienced it first hand.

My wife and I both worked in the same company, took trams to work or walked and did not need a car due to the transportation system (which is another story to be told). We found the city and all that was Switzerland really a wonderful experience ... except the drug situation - which was halted there and in most other European countries (CH is not in the EU).

The city spent a lot of money keeping it beautiful, quaint, faithful to its 400 years of heritage, and freindly to tourists and their families.

Once the drug program was in full swing, many locations in the city were established or converted for the purpose of drug dispensing and, naturally became hangouts. In six months the city on both sides of the Rhine were flooded with these people, needles were everywhere, they were lying in the streets, scaring just about everyone directly or indirectly, crime went through the roof and more illegal drugs flooded into Basel. They darn near destroyed the place.

The Swiss being the Swiss who have a purely democratic, referendum-based voting system, stopped it. But it took them years to restore the city and its reputation.

For what it is worth.

 

[Jon]

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.

 

[Peejay]

Have mentioned this before, but I lived in Switzerland for 6 years, Basel. During that time they began a policy of providing drugs (lots, but cannot recall the restrictions) if addicts also took the substitute in order to gradually wean them off the real thing. At the same time they were on social assistance.

This kind of thing feels good and right to many well-meaning people. But I doubt they have experienced it first hand.

My wife and I both worked in the same company, took trams to work or walked and did not need a car due to the transportation system (which is another story to be told). We found the city and all that was Switzerland really a wonderful experience ... except the drug situation - which was halted there and in most other European countries (CH is not in the EU).

The city spent a lot of money keeping it beautiful, quaint, faithful to its 400 years of heritage, and freindly to tourists and their families.

Once the drug program was in full swing, many locations in the city were established or converted for the purpose of drug dispensing and, naturally became hangouts. In six months the city on both sides of the Rhine were flooded with these people, needles were everywhere, they were lying in the streets, scaring just about everyone directly or indirectly, crime went through the roof and more illegal drugs flooded into Basel. They darn near destroyed the place.

The Swiss being the Swiss who have a purely democratic, referendum-based voting system, stopped it. But it took them years to restore the city and its reputation.

For what it is worth.

Good story. Not sure what it has to do with drug testing welfare recipients.

 

[Jon]

Because it's an invasion of privacy you fucking idiot. So do you want a cop to come search your home whenever he wants to? You have nothing to hide. Just give the govt a key to your house and let them walk in and search whether you are there or not. You have nothing to hide.

Random drug testing is not akin to random searching of someone's home. If you test for drugs, you either find drugs or you don't. If one doesn't do drugs, I don't see why they would care. If they do drugs, they don't need to be taking our fucking tax dollars.

 

[manifold]

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.

Ok, at least now I understand your bitterness a little better. But you seem like a reasonable person most of the time, so why would you assume that your half-brother is more representative of the rule than the exception?

 

[Indiana Oracle]

It has to do with this policies detractors. Eventually you wind up at this place and the issue of drug legalization.

 

[Peejay]

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.

 

[Jon]

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.

Ok, at least now I understand your bitterness a little better. But you seem like a reasonable person most of the time, so why would you assume that your half-brother is more representative of the rule than the exception?

Because I've seen many more like him. His girlfriend, for example, receives welfare and food stamps for her and her children. It's all spent/traded for drugs. Most of the childrens' actual living expenses come out of my mother's pockets. In a poverty stricken area like where I'm from, people like this are not the exception. This is the system liberals want to pump more money into, and they want to give these people handouts without stipulations, while hard-working families are struggling to get by.

 

[slackjawed]

Editec,
fifth amendment i plead
I work at a fishing lake all summer, renting boats and being a guide on an occasional fishing or hunting trip. I walk a lot in the forest.
I have never tried to hide any income or get out of paying. Now I am labeled a criminal because I have health issues. I may as well be a criminal.
The hospital has worked out a payment plan as I no longer have health insurance. Not sure how that works if someone is garnishing all your pay, lol. could be interesting. I don't collect any type of government benefits myself, and won't either.
I think I might be lucky to live in Arizona. I think if I lived in NY i would have been taken out of the hospital and put in jail. I think that might be how they operate, not sure as I never lived there.

 

[Peejay]

It has to do with this policies detractors. Eventually you wind up at this place and the issue of drug legalization.

Well sure, but again, that's another conversation. We're talking about the economic feasability of drug testing. Let's put self righteousness aside and talk dollars and cents.

 

[Jon]

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.

Sorry bud, my argument applies to all programs: unemployment, welfare, food stamps, AND disability. Any government program should require random drug testing. Actually, I'm more in favor of drug testing for unemployment and welfare than any others, because those are incomes in lieu of actual work performed. And if workers can be randomly tested, so can these deadbeats.

 

[Peejay]

Editec,
fifth amendment i plead
I work at a fishing lake all summer, renting boats and being a guide on an occasional fishing or hunting trip. I walk a lot in the forest.
I have never tried to hide any income or get out of paying. Now I am labeled a criminal because I have health issues. I may as well be a criminal.
The hospital has worked out a payment plan as I no longer have health insurance. Not sure how that works if someone is garnishing all your pay, lol. could be interesting. I don't collect any type of government benefits myself, and won't either.
I think I might be lucky to live in Arizona. I think if I lived in NY i would have been taken out of the hospital and put in jail. I think that might be how they operate, not sure as I never lived there.

You realize that these same folks who are going after drug testing are the ones that wanted you to be branded a dead beat dad ?

 

[slackjawed]

Yeah Peejay, i do. The only bright side I have come across on the net while trying to figure out how to exert some kind of legal rights is that after she worked hard to pass this legislation while bill was the pres, she has come out on several occasions and said that some men were being taken advantage of and that she has been appaleed at the number of suicides that it has seemingly caused.
myself, I claim no party affiliation, just hope for the best from whoever it is regardless of party.

 

[Peejay]

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.

Sorry bud, my argument applies to all programs: unemployment, welfare, food stamps, AND disability. Any government program should require random drug testing. Actually, I'm more in favor of drug testing for unemployment and welfare than any others, because those are incomes in lieu of actual work performed. And if workers can be randomly tested, so can these deadbeats.

Workers are tested for safety reasons, not for payroll reasons. Payroll doesn't decrease with positive drug test, soemone else just takes the job. And the same will be true for public assitance, for that matter. Someone will come along to fill the hole left by a user. We will pay the same for food stamps, plus the cost of testing.

You, and many others, have a personal axe to grind. Has no place in justifying cost. If you think you're tired of paying for welfare, wait to you get a load of paying for welfare drug testing.

The argument isn't about whether it's right or wrong to use drugs or recieve welfare. Those are strawmen. Drugs are illegal. No one should be using. We pay for enforcement of that. The question is the economic viability of testing.

 

[slackjawed]

dammit, i waqs talking about hillery clinton

 

[Peejay]

dammit, i waqs talking about hillery clinton

I figured that out. What a bitch.

 

[Jon]

Workers are tested for safety reasons, not for payroll reasons.

Right. It's a problem of safety is a person who works at a bank used drugs three days ago.

Payroll doesn't decrease with positive drug test, soemone else just takes the job. And the same will be true for public assitance, for that matter. Someone will come along to fill the hole left by a user. We will pay the same for food stamps, plus the cost of testing.

Absolutely wrong. Businesses have to fill gaps in their workforce, yes. But there's no waiting list of people needing government benefits. Anyone who applies that qualifies will receive their benefits, regardless of whether or not another person is denied benefits based on failing a drug test.

The argument isn't about whether it's right or wrong to use drugs or recieve welfare. Those are strawmen. Drugs are illegal. No one should be using. We pay for enforcement of that. The question is the economic viability of testing.

Drug testing is cheap. If failing a drug test means a person loses their benefits forever, it is certainly viable. Sure, there will be some testing done that won't find anything, but the gain from denying benefits to one person can pay for a few hundred drug tests per year.