Welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

[Inthemiddle]

why is a lending institution allowed to invade your privacy in an effort to ensure you are a viable candidate for a loan, but the government is not allowed to invade your privacy in an effort to ensure you are a viable candidate for welfare?

Well, there are several reasons I suppose I could bring up. But the simplest, and probably most relevant, is that private companies are not the government. The constitution protects you from government abuses. But my 1st amendment rights don't necessarily shield me from being fired from my intro gig on Monday Night Football for saying something the boss don't like.

 

[Mr.Nick]

what do you deem a meaningful scale?

If your tax dollars was responsible for one person being able to afford a fix...and that fix killed them.....and they left behind children......would it not bother you?

Now, dont get me wrong...the more we debate this, the more I understand your position...and that of Care4all...and the more I am leaning in that direction....

But if you gave money to a charity and you found out that the charity, on a very small scale, was using that money to buy drugs for some people...would you stop donating money to them?

What I mean is that, based on the numbers available, only 0.005% of people who apply for benefits have used drugs recently before they applied. That's not a "meaningful" amount of applicants, it's a negligible amount. I'm sure I could find more police officers who are doing drugs on a regular basis. We could probably find more waste than that in the cost of paperwork that has to be repeated because the state lost it the first time. The point is, that until Willow can prove that entitlement funds are being spent on drugs on any meaningful scale, then the question has no relevance here. It's nothing but a tangent that is mean tot be a distraction from the real issue.

Based on what numbers??

The ******* housing projects here in Chicago are NOTHING BUT drunks and drug addicts - and they all live on welfare..

I've known many people on welfare and the strong majority of them were drug users - actually all of them except for a couple of them..

You're so full of shit...

 

[Jarhead]

why is a lending institution allowed to invade your privacy in an effort to ensure you are a viable candidate for a loan, but the government is not allowed to invade your privacy in an effort to ensure you are a viable candidate for welfare?

Well, there are several reasons I suppose I could bring up. But the simplest, and probably most relevant, is that private companies are not the government. The constitution protects you from government abuses. But my 1st amendment rights don't necessarily shield me from being fired from my intro gig on Monday Night Football for saying something the boss don't like.

good answer.
Makes sense.

OK...Im convinced......there needs to be a better way than drug testing...

But what else is there?

 

[Jarhead]

what do you deem a meaningful scale?

If your tax dollars was responsible for one person being able to afford a fix...and that fix killed them.....and they left behind children......would it not bother you?

Now, dont get me wrong...the more we debate this, the more I understand your position...and that of Care4all...and the more I am leaning in that direction....

But if you gave money to a charity and you found out that the charity, on a very small scale, was using that money to buy drugs for some people...would you stop donating money to them?

What I mean is that, based on the numbers available, only 0.005% of people who apply for benefits have used drugs recently before they applied. That's not a "meaningful" amount of applicants, it's a negligible amount. I'm sure I could find more police officers who are doing drugs on a regular basis. We could probably find more waste than that in the cost of paperwork that has to be repeated because the state lost it the first time. The point is, that until Willow can prove that entitlement funds are being spent on drugs on any meaningful scale, then the question has no relevance here. It's nothing but a tangent that is mean tot be a distraction from the real issue.

Based on what numbers??

The ******* housing projects here in Chicago are NOTHING BUT drunks and drug addicts - and they all live on welfare..

I've known many people on welfare and the strong majority of them were drug users - actually all of them except for a couple of them..

You're so full of shit...

you have a lot of friends who are drug using welfare recipients?

Maybe you need to choose your friends better?

I mean...all that will get ya is a vaible run for the WHite House.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Based on what numbers??

Based on the numbers in the report. Are you even paying attention? Or just reacting, like a cockroach that runs into a frenzy when it sees light?

The ******* housing projects here in Chicago are NOTHING BUT drunks and drug addicts - and they all live on welfare..

We're talking about Florida.

I've known many people on welfare and the strong majority of them were drug users - actually all of them except for a couple of them..

I've known many people on welfare and none of them were drug users. Guess that got us nowhere, eh?

You're so full of shit...

Because you've had so much to offer this discussion, eh?

 

[Mr.Nick]

What I mean is that, based on the numbers available, only 0.005% of people who apply for benefits have used drugs recently before they applied. That's not a "meaningful" amount of applicants, it's a negligible amount. I'm sure I could find more police officers who are doing drugs on a regular basis. We could probably find more waste than that in the cost of paperwork that has to be repeated because the state lost it the first time. The point is, that until Willow can prove that entitlement funds are being spent on drugs on any meaningful scale, then the question has no relevance here. It's nothing but a tangent that is mean tot be a distraction from the real issue.

Based on what numbers??

The ******* housing projects here in Chicago are NOTHING BUT drunks and drug addicts - and they all live on welfare..

I've known many people on welfare and the strong majority of them were drug users - actually all of them except for a couple of them..

You're so full of shit...

you have a lot of friends who are drug using welfare recipients?

Maybe you need to choose your friends better?

I mean...all that will get ya is a vaible run for the WHite House.

No I used to back when I was 17-25......

I used to smoke pot and would get it from the idiots sitting on their lazy asses selling the shit while they lived off the government paying for their housing using section 8 vouchers and flipping their foodstamps for cash....

Which is why I'm getting sick of people defending that type of behavior - and that is exactly what they're doing when they believe drug tests for these welfare ***** are wrong...

 

[Jarhead]

Based on what numbers??

The ******* housing projects here in Chicago are NOTHING BUT drunks and drug addicts - and they all live on welfare..

I've known many people on welfare and the strong majority of them were drug users - actually all of them except for a couple of them..

You're so full of shit...

you have a lot of friends who are drug using welfare recipients?

Maybe you need to choose your friends better?

I mean...all that will get ya is a vaible run for the WHite House.

No I used to back when I was 17-25......

I used to smoke pot and would get it from the idiots sitting on their lazy asses selling the shit while they lived off the government paying for their housing using section 8 vouchers and flipping their foodstamps for cash....

Which is why I'm getting sick of people defending that type of behavior - and that is exactly what they're doing when they believe drug tests for these welfare ***** are wrong...

so we should humiliate the masses due to the actions of a few?

I dont know about you...but I was pissed at the way the demoicratic party, Obama and the liberals tried to humiliate all business owners due to the actiuons of a few business owners.

 

[Inthemiddle]

OK...Im convinced......there needs to be a better way than drug testing...

But what else is there?

Well, honestly, a complete reworking of the welfare and social services system.

In my "ideal" scenario, increased spending would be combined with increased services as well as increased accountability. I think we could do alot if we could help, for example, single mothers more. If we could increase services to give them better abilities to start working on education or vocational training (like funding for child care programs, possibly try to tie these to community organizations like YMCAs, etc.), while also holding a higher standard for accountability that requisites receiving benefits with taking additional steps to better your long term situation. It would provide both ability to develop yourself, as well as a powerful incentive to do so, because if you don't remain in school you'll lose your benefits. And it would go a long way toward breaking the cycle of multi generation poverty that often lands people on the welfare roles.

I know it's probably not a popular concept among the right of center crowd. But I think it would be a good long term investment that will see reductions in overall expenditures a decade from now, because people are getting off the system instead of lingering on it repeatedly throughout their lives.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

This is gonna kill the sales of Poppy Seed Bagels.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Explain to us again why hard working taxpaying American citizens should be forced to subsidize drug use?

Uhhh, no. I'm going to say no, I'm not going to explain that to you until you can prove that it's even happening on any meaningful scale. And class warfare rhetoric is not proof.

They cant, their only deal in debates on urban legends

 

[Mr.Nick]

Based on what numbers??

Based on the numbers in the report. Are you even paying attention? Or just reacting, like a cockroach that runs into a frenzy when it sees light?

The ******* housing projects here in Chicago are NOTHING BUT drunks and drug addicts - and they all live on welfare..

We're talking about Florida.

I've known many people on welfare and the strong majority of them were drug users - actually all of them except for a couple of them..

I've known many people on welfare and none of them were drug users. Guess that got us nowhere, eh?

You're so full of shit...

Because you've had so much to offer this discussion, eh?

You think Miami is any different from Chicago?

You know people on welfare? yeah like who???? - yourself???

Yeah I bet you're living on welfare hence the program is all good and great - because you're getting free internet and vouchers for rent.. But you don't use drugs..

You see how that works...

You ever been to a housing project???

They have them in Miami too...

Except down there they're all smoking crack in the projects..

Now **** them - if they want free housing they can take a ******* drug test. Florida taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for a bunch of crackheads..

If they don't like it they can stop using drugs or live on the streets or with someone what is NOT on section 8..

 

[Inthemiddle]

You think those in prison have privacy??

Being stripped searched daily is privacy? having every piece of your mail opened and read is privacy?? having your items searched once a week is privacy??

I've already explained how the varying levels of infringement in privacy work on the constitutional level. Multiple times. I'm not going to go into again, go look it up for yourself. You're not being educated in this, you're just ranting.

 

[WillowTree]

You think those in prison have privacy??

Being stripped searched daily is privacy? having every piece of your mail opened and read is privacy?? having your items searched once a week is privacy??

I've already explained how the varying levels of infringement in privacy work on the constitutional level. Multiple times. I'm not going to go into again, go look it up for yourself. You're not being educated in this, you're just ranting.

well we've already explained to your dumb ass that most of the working taxpaying American citizens are drug tested as part of their employment and I see no reason why those individuals should work their axs off to subsidize the drug users..

 

[Mr.Nick]

Mr nick stays mad...lol

You need to go outside, bruv

It's raining, oh and I have a cold.

Of course I'm mad, some posters are basically saying welfare recipients have the right to do drugs while they live for free... If they live for free they're obviously getting drugs using their welfare check..

If they were opposed to my assertion then they would support drug testing welfare recipients..

As far as I see it if you're living off the taxpayer hence the government you are required to abide by the rules of those who provide free roof they live under and those who feed them..

You ever hear the old saying a parent tells a teenager: "if you live under my roof you will live by my rules because I pay the bills."

Well the same concept applies here..

 

[Jarhead]

OK...Im convinced......there needs to be a better way than drug testing...

But what else is there?

Well, honestly, a complete reworking of the welfare and social services system.

In my "ideal" scenario, increased spending would be combined with increased services as well as increased accountability. I think we could do alot if we could help, for example, single mothers more. If we could increase services to give them better abilities to start working on education or vocational training (like funding for child care programs, possibly try to tie these to community organizations like YMCAs, etc.), while also holding a higher standard for accountability that requisites receiving benefits with taking additional steps to better your long term situation. It would provide both ability to develop yourself, as well as a powerful incentive to do so, because if you don't remain in school you'll lose your benefits. And it would go a long way toward breaking the cycle of multi generation poverty that often lands people on the welfare roles.

I know it's probably not a popular concept among the right of center crowd. But I think it would be a good long term investment that will see reductions in overall expenditures a decade from now, because people are getting off the system instead of lingering on it repeatedly throughout their lives.

you are assuming the sytem would not be gamed.
Let me tell you what I experienced this past year.

NY State has a program...if you qualify, you can collect unemployment while taking courses in ICD-9 (medical coding). The state pays the tuition.

Schools that offer the course MUST accept these students to remain accredited schools in the eyes of NYS.

Now here is the problem...

The schools are bursting at the seams....sounds good. No?

No. Its the worst case scenario. You see, those schools must accept these students and as a result have to turn other students NOT on the NYS list away...Doesnt sound like a major problem...but look at what is happening...

Over 1/3 of the students do not show up for class. When the time comes to "pass or fail". well over 1/3 fail as they rarely attend class...and that ruins the "rating" of the school. Then...of those that show uyp for cl;ass and pass...they must go through an externship program. They get paid, and lose their unemployment for that period (it is deferred, not lost).....sounds OK...but the proiblem? Over 30% of them show up for the first day to the exterrnship, but prefer to not continue and no show after that and go back to their unemployment. So now the schools are losing their relationships with the medical facilities that offer their students externships as they have "no shows"...

So the outcome?

Those that WANT to take the courses cant becuase they are locked out.
Those that dont want to take the courses, have to "at least try"...and then no show to the classes and fail.
The schools that used to brag about 90% success rates now have less than 70% success rates
Medical facilities no longer trust the students coming out of the schools...

Oh yeah...and NYS is spending millions on the program.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Mr Nick the lazy pothead and drug dealer friend sure likes to generalize. I bet his whole family is on drugs

 

[Mr.Nick]

You think those in prison have privacy??

Being stripped searched daily is privacy? having every piece of your mail opened and read is privacy?? having your items searched once a week is privacy??

I've already explained how the varying levels of infringement in privacy work on the constitutional level. Multiple times. I'm not going to go into again, go look it up for yourself. You're not being educated in this, you're just ranting.

Oh you're so full of shit - you have explained nothing...

Furthermore you wouldn't know the constitution if it slapped you upside your head...

Also, I'm the libertarian here...

You know you're wrong when you have a true libertarian arguing that the state has a right to drug test those living off of the taxpayers...

This policy is a requirement for a FREE SERVICE - if you cant meet the requirements then you don't get the FREE SERVICE..

Besides, pissing in a cup isn't intrusive at all...

 

[Care4all]

You think those in prison have privacy??

Being stripped searched daily is privacy? having every piece of your mail opened and read is privacy?? having your items searched once a week is privacy??

I've already explained how the varying levels of infringement in privacy work on the constitutional level. Multiple times. I'm not going to go into again, go look it up for yourself. You're not being educated in this, you're just ranting.

Oh you're so full of shit - you have explained nothing...

Furthermore you wouldn't know the constitution if it slapped you upside your head...

Also, I'm the libertarian here...

You know you're wrong when you have a true libertarian arguing that the state has a right to drug test those living off of the taxpayers...

This policy is a requirement for a FREE SERVICE - if you cant meet the requirements then you don't get the FREE SERVICE..

Besides, pissing in a cup isn't intrusive at all...

sorry...NO Libertarian would agree with this.....you are not libertarian Nick!!!! at least not on this topic!

 

[sassmcghee]

We regularly drug test where I work, in fact my job duties include administering the drug and alcohol program, so I am all for drug testing. The use of illicit drugs is forbidden and against the law. If you are not breaking the law you won't have anything to worry about. I have had to take several drug tests in my lifetime when getting hired for a job. If someone is giving you money whether it’s for actually working or for NOT working you need to play by the rules, that’s part of the gig. Don’t like it? Go elsewhere.