States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Peejay]

Hey dude, that's not cool. You don't go changing a quote and attribute it to me.

Are you going to challenge me to a bum fight now?


"Anyone have a song request?"

Well no, but that's not cool. All the yap is one thing but attributing remarks to someone that didn't say them is another.

Don't you have some urine to be checking out, piss boy ?

 

[Shogun]

Hey dude, that's not cool. You don't go changing a quote and attribute it to me.

Are you going to challenge me to a bum fight now?


"Anyone have a song request?"

Well no, but that's not cool. All the yap is one thing but attributing remarks to someone that didn't say them is another.

Don't you have some urine to be checking out, piss boy ?

You probably shouldn't be crying like a bitch about what isn't cool after posting how you'll be my new net stalker looking for shit to get me fired, dude. All because you can't make a viable argument as it relates to people who receive food stamps while using drugs, no less. Your "do as I say, not as I do" mentality might gel with your target sidewalk audience but getting your panties in a wad over corrected quotes really rings rather hollow considering the personal shit you've decided to dive into.

Don't you have some dinner to be begging for, busker?

 

[Peejay]

Are you going to challenge me to a bum fight now?


"Anyone have a song request?"

Well no, but that's not cool. All the yap is one thing but attributing remarks to someone that didn't say them is another.

Don't you have some urine to be checking out, piss boy ?

You probably shouldn't be crying like a bitch about what isn't cool after posting how you'll be my new net stalker looking for shit to get me fired, dude. All because you can't make a viable argument as it relates to people who receive food stamps while using drugs, no less. Your "do as I say, not as I do" mentality might gel with your target sidewalk audience but getting your panties in a wad over corrected quotes really rings rather hollow considering the shit personal shit you've decided to dive into.

Don't you have some dinner to be begging for, busker?

Dude, you were bragging about being a pot smoker, then bragging about being a human resources piss tester. I didn't start the personal stuff, you offered it up like you were somehow proud of the fact that you get away with using drugs while testing others for the same thing. You're a dishonest piss boy. If you're concerned at all about losing your job, why don't you grow an honest streak and stop being a drug user ? This topic is about drug testing. You admit to cheating drug test and being a drug user but still insist that you have some sort of authority on the effectiveness of drug testing. You're an idiot and a piss boy.

My job, on the other hand, has nothing to do with drug testing or drugs or this argument.

Aside from any of that, you don't misquote people. That is fundamental no no on message boards. It lends itself to more dishonest debate.

Do you have any notion of honesty, what so ever ? Or has you living lie of drug use distorted your perception of honesty, piss boy ?

 

[Ravi]

EVERYONE does not benefit MORE than they put in. Thats just stupid. You think Warren Buffet benefits MORE from the taxes he gives the IRS than the capital those same funds COULD be? sheesh, ravi.


And, you listed a range of things that WE ALL enjoy because of taxes. Tell me.. how do tax payers without kids benefit from YOUR tax credit for doing what every cat in an alleyway manages to do?

Yes, I do believe Buffet benefits overall from being an American taxpayer.

I'm not going off on your silly tangent, soggy. If you want to drug test someone for benefiting then you have to test all, or you're a hypocrite. Oh, wait.

again, thats just stupid. Warren Buffet could yield a higher return on his entire annual tax burden than calories you put away in a year if he didn't have to pay taxes. Your opinon about the value of using roads means nothing when non-parent tax payers can't benefit from the same breeding vagina baby factory you seem to think qualifies you to a larger grab from the common tax burden.

being fair isn't like dividing up a pie, ravi.. you can't take 4 slices just because you are as wide as 4 grown adults.

Jeesh...your brain has atrophied.

 

[Shogun]

Well no, but that's not cool. All the yap is one thing but attributing remarks to someone that didn't say them is another.

Don't you have some urine to be checking out, piss boy ?

You probably shouldn't be crying like a bitch about what isn't cool after posting how you'll be my new net stalker looking for shit to get me fired, dude. All because you can't make a viable argument as it relates to people who receive food stamps while using drugs, no less. Your "do as I say, not as I do" mentality might gel with your target sidewalk audience but getting your panties in a wad over corrected quotes really rings rather hollow considering the shit personal shit you've decided to dive into.

Don't you have some dinner to be begging for, busker?

Dude, you were bragging about being a pot smoker, then bragging about being a human resources piss tester. I didn't start the personal stuff, you offered it up like you were somehow proud of the fact that you get away with using drugs while testing others for the same thing. You're a dishonest piss boy. If you're concerned at all about losing your job, why don't you grow an honest streak and stop being a drug user ? This topic is about drug testing. You admit to cheating drug test and being a drug user but still insist that you have some sort of authority on the effectiveness of drug testing. You're an idiot and a piss boy.

My job, on the other hand, has nothing to do with drug testing or drugs or this argument.

Aside from any of that, you don't misquote people. That is fundamental no no on message boards. It lends itself to more dishonest debate.

Do you have any notion of honesty, what so ever ? Or has you living lie of drug use distorted your perception of honesty, piss boy ?

oh looky.. a "do as I say, not as I do" busker who thinks his shit doesn't stink. classic.


first off, pussy, I offered the info in order to show you want WORKING pot smokers look like so you didn't continue to lump everyone together as if we are all reflective of each other like some common denominator. Much like the alcohol drinker vs alcoholic bum example I used on the outset of this tangent. SECOND, if you don't like it when I get personal then you probably shouldn't act as if you are some net sleuth out to get someone fired. I really don't give a fuck how self righteous you feel your position is. If you want to act like a fucking baffoon then you probably shouldn't post your address and phone number.

THIRD, you might want to put some time into this forum before acting as if you are going to boss someone around. For real. I'll misquote every single fucking thing you post and I invite you to complain to a mod. Your appeal for consideration are falling on ears that started ignoring you the minute you decided to make it your fucking quest to get someone fired instead of making a better point about the subject at hand. DISHONEST DEBATE? Are you fucking serious? AFTER you keep forgetting that this thread is about FOOD STAMP RECIPIENTS in order to get personal with me? I guess in Busker world that is supposed to be less ironic.

Ps, my drug use has yet to distort my logic, bum. I don't have a problem remembering what this thread is about. Hell, I posted the goddamn OP. But, I will say it's pretty fucking rich to see you crying foul given your input today. so, go complain to a mod, motherfucker, and tell them Shogun says hi. Might I suggest Del? He's ALWAYS fun to interact with.

 

[Shogun]

Yes, I do believe Buffet benefits overall from being an American taxpayer.

I'm not going off on your silly tangent, soggy. If you want to drug test someone for benefiting then you have to test all, or you're a hypocrite. Oh, wait.

again, thats just stupid. Warren Buffet could yield a higher return on his entire annual tax burden than calories you put away in a year if he didn't have to pay taxes. Your opinon about the value of using roads means nothing when non-parent tax payers can't benefit from the same breeding vagina baby factory you seem to think qualifies you to a larger grab from the common tax burden.

being fair isn't like dividing up a pie, ravi.. you can't take 4 slices just because you are as wide as 4 grown adults.

Jeesh...your brain has atrophied.

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

 

[Peejay]

Peejay, it's none of your business who's cock or how many cocks I suck after work. I do it to get my dope money and that's my business. No one at my job knows I get high or turn homosexual tricks. It's none of their business.

Hey....too much information there big guy. None of my business, like you said.

 

[Ravi]

again, thats just stupid. Warren Buffet could yield a higher return on his entire annual tax burden than calories you put away in a year if he didn't have to pay taxes. Your opinon about the value of using roads means nothing when non-parent tax payers can't benefit from the same breeding vagina baby factory you seem to think qualifies you to a larger grab from the common tax burden.

being fair isn't like dividing up a pie, ravi.. you can't take 4 slices just because you are as wide as 4 grown adults.

Jeesh...your brain has atrophied.

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

 

[Yurt]

Jeesh...your brain has atrophied.

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

 

[alan1]

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

If the parents are spending welfare money on drugs instead of spending it on feeding, housing and clothing their children, then the children should be removed from them, that's what most welfare is for, THE CHILDREN, not the parents.

 

[alan1]

They talked about this on the Ron Reagan show last night. Air America 6pm to 9pm.

It would cost more than the AIG bonus' to drug test them all.

And it is unconstitutional. Right to privacy and innoncent until proven guilty.

The courts have already stuck this down as unconstitutional several times

This is a political stunt

On the RON REAGAN SHOW, they said that under Ronald Reagan is when companies started drug testing. War on drugs.

I think Ronald Reagan meant well, but then again, so do most delusional, self richous Republicans.

What part of the phrase "random drug testing" do you not understand?

 

[Peejay]

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

If the parents are spending welfare money on drugs instead of spending it on feeding, housing and clothing their children, then the children should be removed from them, that's what most welfare is for, THE CHILDREN, not the parents.

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.

 

[alan1]

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

If the parents are spending welfare money on drugs instead of spending it on feeding, housing and clothing their children, then the children should be removed from them, that's what most welfare is for, THE CHILDREN, not the parents.

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?

 

[Peejay]

If the parents are spending welfare money on drugs instead of spending it on feeding, housing and clothing their children, then the children should be removed from them, that's what most welfare is for, THE CHILDREN, not the parents.

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.

 

[Silver Diva]

I dont think it matters whether a parent spends welfare money or some other money to buy drugs. If they have money to buy drugs, then they can use that to buy food instead, and then claim that much less on their welfare! I am ok if my taxes go up a bit to improve schools. I am willing to pay a bit more if it means that our teachers get paid more than minimum wage. But I absolutely do not want a dime of my taxes going towards supporting drug addicts!

 

[Chris]

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

This is a great idea.

Something I think we can all agreed on.

 

[Peejay]

I dont think it matters whether a parent spends welfare money or some other money to buy drugs. If they have money to buy drugs, then they can use that to buy food instead, and then claim that much less on their welfare! I am ok if my taxes go up a bit to improve schools. I am willing to pay a bit more if it means that our teachers get paid more than minimum wage. But I absolutely do not want a dime of my taxes going towards supporting drug addicts!

I don't think anyone does want to pay for people's drugs with food stamps or welfare. That is a simple enough idea and it's easy enough to get people on board with that. The question is, do you think that drug testing will: A. Be effective and actually reduce the number of drug users using food stamps. B. Do you think the cost of drug testing will be offset by any amount of welfare not paid ?


I can't say this enough...NO ONE WANTS WELFARE MONEY TO SUPPORT DRUG HABITS OR DRUG USERS. THERE IS A FEDERAL, LIFETIME BAN ON DRUG FELONS RECIEVING WELFARE.

Just saying that you don't want welfare to support drug users isn't any kind of stance here. We don't have anyone that is going to disagree with you.

 

[BrianH]

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

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hell, that works for me. Maybe our tax dollars will go for food, and shelter, and not recreational entertainment.

Actually, your tax dollars will now go for drug testing equipment and extra training for state welfare administration employees to give them. I'm not sure what "recreational entertainment" you think is currently being funded or will be restricted, but I CAN tell you that the net restriction will be a lot of children doing without the minimal provisions the state is currently providing them via welfare.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.